GUNKEL 
Israel  Anr*  Babylon 


BS 

1180 

D5 

G8 


ISRAEL  AND  BABYLON 


INFLUENCE   OF   BABY1 
THE  RELIGION  OF  ISRAEL 


HERMAN  GUNKEL,D.  D. 


AWU8TAHT  PKOFXSBOR  • 


6TAMEK  VEH8ITT 

T   Hi1 


ENGLISH  TRANSLATION 

BY 


PHILADELPHIA 
JOHN    JOB     M^ 


/ISRAEL  AND  BABYLON 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BABYLON   ON 
THE  RELIGION   OF  ISRAEL 

[A  REPLY  TO  DELITZSCH] 


HERMAN  GTJNKEL,D.D. 

ASSISTANT  PROFESSOR  OF   OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY  IN  THB  UNIVERSITY 
OF  BERLIN 


ENGLISH  TRANSLATION 

BY 

E.  S.  B. 


PHILADELPHIA 

JOHN  JOS.  McVEY 
1904 


COPYRIGHT, 

1904 
JOHN  J.  McVEY. 


PREFACE 

For  presenting  to  the  English-speaking  public  this 
"translation  an  explanation  is  scarcely  necessary.  Since 
the  days  of  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur  no  theological 
controversy  has  so  agitated  Germany  as  has  this  present 
question  as  to  the  relation  between  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  traditions  of  Babylon.  Opened  on  January 
13th,  1902,  by  the  now  famous  lecture  before  the  Em- 
peror, the  struggle  has  raged  and  is  raging  yet  with  a 
fury  of  almost  unparalled  violence.  The  literature  on 
the  subject  has  become  so  voluminous  as  to  form  almost 
«,  library  in  itself.  Prof.  Delitzsch  cites  some  twenty 
titles  in  the  appendix  to  the  second  edition  of  his  first 
-lecture  but  these  are  but  a  modicum  of  the  whole. 

In  one  regard  especially  the  present  situation  may  be 
paralleled  with  the  Baur  controversy.  Nearly  every 
person  who  could  contrive  to  print  or  to  have  printed 
his  views  on  the  subject  has  done  so  and,  in  consequence, 
by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  pamphlets  and  articles 
that  have  appeared  display  a  lack  of  proper  informa- 
tion— riot  to  say,  learning.  That  a  reply  should  be  in 
eome  measure  as  well  informed  as  the  attack  is  a  prin- 
ciple that  has  been  disregarded  in  too  many  instances, 
and  such  a  disregard  merely  assists  in  weakening  the 
oause  defended. 

None  the  less,  many  scientists  and  theologians  of  note 
3iave  appeared  on  both  sides,  such  names  as  Budde, 

(3) 


4  PREFACE 

Jensen,  Konig,  Jeremias,  Hommel  and  Kittel  are  a 
sufficient  evidence  of  that  fact.  But  even  much  of  their 
contribution  to  the  discussion  has  been  irrelevant,  and 
much  energy  has  been  wasted  fruitlessly  in  attempting 
to  overthrow  Delitzsch  on  his  own  ground.  As  an 
Assyriologist  his  work  can  scarcely  be  questioned.  The 
proper  question  is  :  Do  his  results  in  Assyriological 
study  form  a  sufficient  basis  for  his  conclusions  in 
theology?  Not  that  this  has  been  overlooked  by  any 
means — cf.  Budde,  especially — but  the  need  was  felt 
for  a  thorough  scientist  who  should  be  at  once  a  master 
of  the  Babylonian  legends  and  a  theologian  of  the  first 
rank. 

For  this  reason  the  work  of  Prof.  Gunkel  appears 
most  opportunely.  Probably  no  one  is  better  qualified 
to  speak  with  authority  on  the  matters  involved.  In  his 
work  "  Schopfung  und  Chaos  "(1895)  he  displayed 
a  most  perfect  acquaintance  with  the  theology  and 
legends  of  Babylonia  and  his  critical  handling  of  the 
material  was  such  as  to  mark  an  epoch  in  the  study  of 
this  subject.  In  1900  he  published  the  first  edition 
(2nd  in  1902)  of  his  commentary  on  Genesis  (in  the 
Nowack  series),  which,  beyond  all  question,  is  now  the 
authoritative  work  on  this  book.  His  mastery  of  Baby- 
lonian mythology  and  its  influence  on  the  religion  of  the 
Old  Testament  needs  no  further  demonstration  than  that 
afforded  by  this  work. 

In  making  the  present  translation  two  points  have 
been  borne  in  mind.  In  the  first  place  it  has  been  made 
to  conform  to  the  original  as  closely  as  possible. 
Hence  what  is  to  our  eyes  an  unusually  lavish  use  of 


PREFACE  5 

italics  and  exclamation  points.  The  long  paragraphs 
have  been  interfered  with  but  little,  but  occasionally  it 
has  been  necessary  to  split  some  sentence  into  two  or 
three.  In  the  second  place,  remembering  that  the  re- 
sults of  the  higher  criticism  are  not  very  familiar  to  most 
persons  in  this  country,  many  notes  have  been  inserted 
(in  square  brackets)  to  explain  references  known  usually 
to  the  expert  alone. 

The  name  "  Yahwe  "  (Jehovah)  has  been  represented 
usually  by  J",  following  a  common  custom  in  England. 
All  quotations  from  Delitzsch  have  been  made  to  cor- 
respond to  the  English  translation  of  Mr.  Johns  as 
closely  as  possible,  even  when  Gunkel  differs  in  slight 
details  from  the  original.  Biblical  quotations  are  given 
in  the  form  of  the  Authorized  Version. 

For  the  sake  of  those  wishing  to  pursue  the  matter 
further  it  may  be  added  that  the  Code  of  Hammurabi 
has  been  translated  by  Mr.  Johns  under  the  title  "The 
Oldest  Code  of  Laws  in  the  World"  and  forms  a  very  in- 
expensive volume.  The  El-A/mama  Tablets  have  been 
published  in  English  (besides  other  more  elaborate 
editions)  by  Lieut. -Col.  Conder  in  a  popular  form.  A 
sufficient  guide  to  the  literature  on  the  Babel  and  Bible 
controversy  will  be  found  in  the  Expository  Times  for  the 
last  two  years — more  at  length  as  regards  special  mono- 
graphs in  the  other  theological  reviews. 

****** 

A  word  or  two  may  not  be  out  of  place  respecting  Mr. 
Johns'  introduction  to  his  translation  of  Babel  und  Bibel. 
In  the  Expository  Times  for  October  of  the  present  year 
he  says  (p.  44)  :  "When  I  wrote  the  introduction,  I 


6  PREFACE 

tried  to  avoid  giving  any  indication  of  my  own  views  on? 
the  points  raised  by  Prof.  Delitzsch."  If  Mr.  Johns' 
own  views  are  hostile  to  Prof.  Delitzsch,  he  assuredly 
has  met  with  unqualified  success,  for  a  more  apprecia- 
tive introduction  it  rarely  has  been  my  lot  to  read.  It 
is  the  duty  of  the  student  who  claims  to  be  neutral  not 
merely  to  content  himself  with  expatiating  on  the  ex- 
cellencies of  the  work  before  him  but  to  use  at  least 
some  endeavor  to  point  out  possible  weaknesses.  This 
Mr.  Johns  has  made  not  the  least  attempt  to  do  and  the 
most  casual  reading  of  his  introduction  will  dispose  of 
the  plea  "  purely  objective."  Every  virtue  of  Babel 
und  Bible  has  been  indicated,  et  voild  tout. 

On  p.  xx  vi,  we  read  :  "If  these  lectures  are  to  be  an- 
swered the  Professor  must  be  met  on  his  own  ground. 'r 
That  is  perfectly  true  if  an  answer  to  the  purely  scien- 
tific problem  of  the  reading  and  knowledge  of  tablets  is 
meant.  But  the  controversy  was  not  aroused  by  read- 
ing tablets.  The  question  is  :  Do  the  results  of  As- 
syriological  science  destroy  the  possibility  of  a  unique- 
revelation  in  the  Old  Testament?  That  is  what  the 
controversy  is  about  and  there  Prof.  Delitzsch  is  on 
anything  but  his  own  ground.  If  a  total  disregard  of 
the  principles  used  in  studying  the  history  of  religion, 
if  a  complete  ignorance  of  anything  but  the  broadest 
outlines  of  Old  Testament  criticism,  coupled  with  a 
blunder  in  quoting  the  New  Testament  that  a  German 
school-boy  should  be  ashamed  to  make,  prove  any thing> 
they  certainly  prove  that  in  theology,  Prof.  Delitzsch  is- 
most  emphatically  not  on  his  own  ground.  He  has 
placed  himself  in  a  domain  where  he  is  not  at  homev 


PREFACE  7 

with  the  results  to  be  expected.  LaPlace  was  a  most 
wondrous  mathematician,  but  his  career  as  a  politician 
is  memorable.  Prof.  Delitzsch  is  perhaps  the  foremost 
of  Assyriologists.  Let  us  hope  he  will  not  try  to  be 
anything  else. 

THE  TRANSLATOR. 


ISRAEL  AND  BABYLON 


FOR  something  over  a  year  the  German  public  has 
been  set  in  commotion  over  the  theme  "Babel  and 
Bible."  How  are  we  to  explain  the  sensation  that  the 
lecturea  of  Delitzsch  have  called  forth  ?  This  is  a  ques- 
tion that  certainly  demands  consideration.  For,  in  the 
first  place,  that  first  Jecture,  from  which  the  agitation 
of  the  public  took  its  start,  offers  nothing,  as  far  as  re- 
gards its  scientific  material,  but  what  was  known  gener- 
ally to  all  Assyriologists  and  to  all  students  of  Old 
Testament  theology  as  well — a  fact  that  is  granted  on 
all  sides.  In  other  words,  the  lecture  was,  and  evi- 
dently claimed  to  be,  only  a  fuller  and  more  perspic- 
uous review  of  the  present  results.  In  order  to  explain 
the  sensation  which  so  suddenly  arose,  it  is  necessary 
to  remember  the  conditions  under  which  our  public 
writers  exist.  The  daily  press  lives  in  its  own  manner 
from  day  to  day  on  "events."  A  development  that 
goes  on  slowly  and  quietly  escapes  notice  easily,  but 
if  a  sudden  and  fortuitous  occurrence  brings  matters 
to  the  surface,  then  the  events  become  all  at  once 
' '  events ' '  and  remain  so  until  something  else  more 
"  eventful "  suppresses  them.  So  it  has  happened  that 
our  newspapers  had  taken  small  notice  of  the  quiet  but 
greatly  growing  science  of  Assyriology,  in  much  the 

(9) 


10  ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON 

same  way  as  they — to  their  disgrace  be  it  said — have 
studied  to  ignore  scientific  theology  in  general  (albeit 
that  there  are  a  few  noteworthy  exceptions,  particularly 
of  late).  Whatever  can  be  read  in  the  daily  papers  on 
such  things  (and  especially  on  Old  Testament  subjects) 
is  usually  of  the  smallest  scientific  value.  And  this  is 
not  excused  by  the  fact  that  many  educated  persons, 
including  those  of  the  highest  circles — aye,  even  many 
University  teachers  (as  is  evident  from  time  to  time) — 
men  with  whom  we  teach  from  day  to  day  and  from 
room  to  room — that  even  such  as  these  know  nothing 
of  the  existence  of  an  earnest  scientific  theology;  have 
no  conceptions  of  the  method  of  our  work,  and  are 
ignorant  of  the  results  of  that  work  despite  all  our 
endeavors  to  popularize  them.  And  with  this  universal 
ignorance  of  the  science  of  religion,  dilettanteism  is 
in  full  bloom  as  it  is  scarce  elsewhere.  Many  hold 
opinions  on  religion  without  being  able  to  join  in  a  con- 
versation on  the  least  technical  topic.  What  we  expe- 
rience anew  each  day  in  this  regard  is  "pitiful,  most 
pitiful."  So  we  can  observe  how  even  investigators, 
who  in  their  own  domain  are  quite  sober  and  temperate, 
suddenly  lose  their  balance  when  they  come  to  discuss 
religious  subjects.  And  now  the  Babylonian  investi- 
gators on  Biblical  subjects  have  suddenly  become 
"events,"  as  if  a  light-bearer  from  above  had  deluged 
them  all  at  once  with  a  stream  of  radiance.  All  the 
world  devoured  this  lecture,  which  the  highest  person 
of  our  state  caused  to  be  delivered  before  him  twice. 
But  the  less  the  public  had  understood  of  these  things 
before,  the  greater  was  its  astonishment  now  to  see  an 


ISRAEL  AND   BABYLON  11 

entire  sunken  world  rise  here  to  the  light  of  day.  Un- 
fortunately, Delitzsch  had  neglected  to  state  in  the  text 
of  his  lecture  and  in  wholly  unequivocal  terms  that  the 
material  gathered  by  him  is  in  all  essentials  (and 
especially  in  so  far  as  it  is  assured)  a  common  posses- 
sion of  a  whole  generation  of  research.  A  part  of  the 
public — and  perchance  no  small  part — has  consequently 
misunderstood  him  entirely,  and  regards  his  lecture  as  a 
most  remarkable  scientific  achievement.  Likewise, 
ecclesiastical  circle*  have  been  agitated  violently.  Delitzsch 
had  avowed  the  results  of  the  modern  Old  Testament 
study ;  he  had,  for  instance,  designated  as  a  scientifically 
irrefragable  and  enduring  fact  the  assertion  that  the 
Pentateuch  is  composed  of  literary  sources  very  differ- 
ent in  kind.  He  had  asserted  a  primitive  Babylonian 
origin  for  some  of  the  most  familiar  portions  of  the 
traditions  of  Israel — in  especial  for  the  narratives  of 
creation,  the  deluge,  and  even  of  Paradise — and  accord- 
ingly declared  himself  of  the  opinion  that  these  stories 
are  to  be  regarded  as  myths  and  legends,  but  not  as 
objective  descriptions  of  real  events.  The  Sabbath, 
likewise,  is  of  Babylonian  origin,  and  for  monotheism 
itself  an  analogy  is  to  be  found  there. 

Now  with  all  these  assertions  Delitzsch  did  not  say 
much  more  than  is  generally  admitted  among  investi- 
gators or  is,  at  least,  under  discussion.  But,  in  spite  of 
that,  his  words  affected  many  in  the  fold  like  a  thun- 
derbolt. Many  things  may  come  into  consideration  to 
explain  so  unexpected  a  result.  But  the  principal 
cause  is,  after  all,  the  lamentable  estrangement  of  the 
evangelical  Church  from  evangelical  science.  The 


12  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

origin  of  this  estrangement  and  the  source  of  blame  for 
it  need  not  be  discussed  here, — let  be  granted  only  the 
fact  itself;  it  is  unfortunately  indisputable.  How 
few  among  the  educated  persons  of  the  community,  yes 
even  among  the  older  clergymen — and  not  only  among 
the  older  clergymen — have  a  clear  conception  of  what  is 
actually  happening  in  the  scientific  theology  of  the 
present !  It  is  this  that  makes  it  possible  for  these 
"Bible-Babylonian"  researches,  when  once  they  have 
become  known,  to  surprise  the  Church  and  find  it  al- 
most weaponless.  In  this  case  the  Church  should  have 
employed  a  conservative  and  rigorous  theology,  which 
could  indicate  what  part  of  Delitzsch's  assertions  is  cor- 
rect and  what  is  perhaps  exaggeration,  but  even  if  many 
cautious  words  were  spoken,  none  the  less  the  voices  of 
the  excited  partisans  rose  much  higher.  The  one  side 
called  out :  The  Bible  is  disposed  of,  once  and  for  all, 
— Assyriology  has  proved  that  all  its  fundamentals  are 
Babylonian  !  And  the  other  fought  with  the  energy  of 
despair  to  admit  only  a  tittle  of  Israel's  religion  as 
adopted  from  foreign  sources.  And  between  these  two 
extremes  a  bewildering  multitude  of  opinions,  reflecting 
back  in  a  myriad  of  forms  the  whole  chaos  of  our 
strenuous  age.  Even  modern  Judaism  arose  in  a  fright 
at  losing  the  aureole  of  the  chosen  people,  if  Israel's  tra- 
ditions were  of  Babylonian  origin.  Personal  amenities 
(that  mayhap  had  been  better  avoided)  were  added. 
There  rained  thick  on  more  or  less  prominent  sides  ar- 
ticles in  newspapers  and  journals,  lectures  illustrated 
and  lectures  unillustrated,  brochures  of  every  descrip- 
tion, while  explanations  or  other  articles  in  the  dailies 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  13 

goaded  up  the  discussions  anew  whenever  slackening. 
An  unutterable  mental  confusion  was  the  result. 

And  this  confusion  has  been  still  further  increased  by 
the  recently  delivered  second  lecture  of  Delitzsch.  To 
be  sure,  as  far  as  regards  matter,  this  lecture  also  brought 
nothing  especial  to  the  expert,  but  now  the  Assyriologist, 
irritated  by  his  ecclesiastical  opponents,  took  up  his 
position  in  the  domain  of  theology  and  summarily 
placed  in  question  the  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  religion  of  Israel  itself. 

But  on  the  very  day  when  this  lecture  was  issued 
the  public  was  astonished  by  another  great  sensation, — 
a  letter  of  the  Emperor's  destroyed  the  wide-spread  error 
that  Delitzsch' s  principal  assertions  were  accompanied 
in  all  their  bearings  by  the  very  highest  approval.  So 
the  attention  of  the  widest  circles  was  drawn  again  to 
this  discussion  and  the  flood  of  publications  began  once 
more.  And  now  a  third  lecture  is  to  be  expected,  of 
which  we  read  here  and  there  mysterious  hints. 

So  the  author  of  these  lines  likewise  has  felt  it  his 
duty  not  to  refuse  the  many  appeals  that  have  come  to 
him,  and  on  his  part  to  assist  in  helping  to  quiet  the 
growing  confusion.  Many  considerations  might  cer- 
tainly have  decided  him  rather  to  silence  than  to  speech, 
for  scientific  investigation  seeks  quiet  and  abhors  sensa- 
tion, and  hard  as  it  may  be  to  the  investigator  that 
no  one  notices  his  painstaking  work,  yet  it  is  dangerous 
when  the  tumult  of  the  day  rages  about  him  and  may 
drown  out  what  is  best  in  him, — the  pure  and  just  in- 
tention which  is  needful  to  him  before  all.  Let  us  say 
then,  once  and  for  all,  in  all  honesty  and  truth  :  "With 


14  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

favor  to  none  and  with  malice  to  none!"  The  author 
may  assume  that  many  readers  will  be  astonished  or 
amazed  by  some  or  other  of  his  words,  although  he  plans 
in  general  not  to  go  beyond  what  he  can  assume  to  be 
the  general  conviction  of  his  colleagues.  But  he  also 
begs  the  readers,  if  they  are  of  a  different  opinion  in 
many  things,  at  least  to  bdieve  that  he  seeks  the  truth 
with  all  his  might,  and  that  in  expressing  it  to  a 
greater  circle  he  has  no  wish  but  to  serve  our  beloved 
Evangelical  Church. 

In  the  first  place,  a  few  words  on  Babylonian  civiliza- 
tion in  general.  The  decipherment  of  the  cuneiform 
inscriptions  is  one  of  the  most  brilliant  achievements  of 
the  human  intellect.  Since  that  time  our  view  of  the 
ancient  and  the  most  ancient  Orient  have  altered  com- 
pletely. While  the  investigators  of  earlier  generations 
were  bound  to  the  scanty  information  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  of  the  Greeks  regarding  the  Orient,  we  now 
know  it  from  native  sources,  and  these  sources  begin, 
at  the  latest,  about  3000  B.  C.!  The  history  of  our 
race  has  been  extended  two  whole  millennia  before  our 
eyes!  What  a  mighty  scientific  event!  And  how  many- 
colored  an  historical  picture  it  is  that  unrolls  itself  be- 
fore our  eyes,  fragmentary  though  it  may  be  for  the 
present!  People  appear,  flourish  and  pass  away! 
Tremendous,  world-embracing  conqueror-states  arise 
and  struggle  for  the  supremacy.  But  the  middle-point 
of  the  Orient  is  Babylonia — there  since  inconceivable 
ages  past,  an  amazingly  high  civilization  reigned,  which 
by  3000  is  found  already  in  full  bloom.  This  culture 
comes  from  a  non-Semitic  people,  whom  we  term 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  15 

Sumerians,  and  is  then  taken  up  and  carried  on  by 
Semitic  immigrants.  And  from  Babylonia  this  culture 
was  carried  forth  through  the  entire  Orient  as  far  as 
Egypt.  Babel  takes  in  the  Orient  the  position  of  Rome 
thousands  of  years  later  in  the  Occident.  This  Babylo- 
nian culture  we  see  operating  in  the  world  up  to  Graeco- 
Roman  times,  in  fact,  its  last  traces  we  have  in  our  very 
midst.  A  few  particulars  here  must  suffice  to  make  clear 
the  immeasurable  importance  of  the  Babylonian  civil- 
ization. Recently  the  scientific  world  has  been  surprised 
by  the  discovery  of  the  law-book  of  the  Babylonian  king 
Hammurabi,  dated  about  2250;  this  law-book  shows 
us  complicated  social  relations  and  a  code  embodying 
refined  and  developed  distinctions,  which,  in  part,  were 
far  more  civilized  than  those  of  Israel  in  the  so-called 
Mosaic  code.  For  instance,  in  Babylon  the  law  of 
blood-revenge  has  disappeared,  while  it  still  rules  in 
ancient  Israel.  Or,  to  name  just  one  other  point  that 
shows  the  height  of  the  Babylonian  culture,  the  Ham- 
murabi code  contains  regulations  for  physicians'  fees! 

And  this  law  was  codified  about  2250:  it  comes  from  a 

7 

time  a  thousand  years  before  there  was  any  people  of 
Israel  at  all.  It  is  as  far  removed  from  Moses  as  we 
are  from  Charlemagne! 

In  order  to  illustrate  the  wide  extent  of  the  Babylo- 
nian influence,  let  us  name  another  discovery  which  a 
few  years  ago  threw  a  sudden  light  on  these  things — the  -j-» 
discovery  of  Tell-Af  marna  in  Egypt.  In  that  place  the 
archives  of  Amenophis  IV  were  excavated,  and  in  them 
was  revealed  the  correspondence  of  the  Pharaohs  with 
the  kings  in  Babylonia,  Assyria,  Mesopotamia,  Cyprus 


16  ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON 

and  with  the  Egyptian  vassals  in  Canaan.  From  this 
international  correspondence,  which  was  carried  on  in 
the  Babylonian  language,  it  was  seen  that  Babylonian 
was  then  the  international  diplomatic  language  of  all 
hither  Asia.  The  petty  kings  of  Canaan  themselves, 
who  then  lived  under  Egyptian  suzerainty,  wrote  to 
the  Egyptian  lord  not  on  Egyptian  material,  i.  e., 
papyrus,  nor  in  the  Egyptian  language,  but  on  Babylo- 
nian material,  i.  e.,  on  stone  tablets,  and  in  the 
Babylonian  language!  Let  us  consider  what  the  pre- 
dominance of  a  foreign  language  in  diplomatic  com- 
munications must  mean  for  the  entire  civilization. 
Syria  and  Canaan  must  then  have  been  subject  to  the 
influence  of  Babylonian  culture,  in  much  the  same 
way,  perhaps,  as  in  the  eighteenth  century  the  whole 
refined  world  —  and  the  diplomats  as  well  —  spoke 
French!  This  correspondence,  however,  which  displays 
an  extension  of  the  Babylonian  civilization  as  far  as 
Canaan,  dates  from  the  time  1500-1400.  Canaan  was, 
as  concerns  its  culture,  a  Babylonian  province,  before 
Israel  had  forced  its  way  into  the  country. 

Another  picture:  In  later  times,  when  Persians, 
Greeks  and  Romans  mingled,  when  religions  became 
interwoven  and  new  composite  concepts  arose,  in  those 
times  also  the  Babylonian  element  is  still  visible,  we 
hear  then  once  more,  and  continually,  of  seven  high- 
est Genii  or  gods — these  are  the  seven  Babylonian 
planet-gods — these  are  the  same  forms  (to  assume  this 
here  in  advance)  which  in  the  Hebrew-Christian  tradi- 
tion remain  as  the  seven  highest  angels — the  seven 
archangels.  In  the  varied  speculations  which  streamed 


ISRAEL    AND    BABYLON  17 

in  from  the  Orient  during  the  first  two  Christian  centu- 
ries, and  even  gained  a  foothold  in  some  few  Chris- 
tian circles — speculations  which  we  choose  to  term 
"Gnostic" — in  these,  there  still  reecho  traces  of  the 
(in  part)  primitive  Babylonian  mythology.  Yes, 
even  among  us  there  are  a  few  things  that  recall 
the  Babylonian  wisdom,  although  of  course  but 
weakly.  The  Babylonians  became  the  teachers  of  our 
whole  cultured  world,  especially  in  astronomy  and  in 
all  branches  dependent  on  it — in  mathematics  and 
metrics.  We  likewise  still  divide  the  zodiac  into  twelve 
signs  and  the  circle  into  360  degrees.  And  modern 
Christians  still  call  the  seven  days  of  the  week  after  the 
seven  planet-gods  of  the  Babylonians:  Sunday  [Samas], 
Monday  [Sin],  Tuesday  [French,  Mardi,  Ninib  or 
Kaivarui],  Wednesday  [French,  Mercredi,  Nabu], 
Thursday  [Marduk],  Friday  [Istar],  Saturday  [Gunkel 
writes  this  in  English,  Nergal],  [Note:  KaivaMiu  and 
Nergal  were  later  interchanged.]  These  names  are 
obtained  by  the  modern  world  through  the  Graeco- 
Roman  civilization,  but  the  latter  obtained  them  from 
the  Orient — originally  from  Babylonia. 

It  is  conceivable  that  modern  investigators  should  be 
intoxicated,  so  to  say,  by  contemplating  such  a  tremen- 
dous history.  And  every  day  may  bring  new  dis- 
coveries, for  we  certainly  are  not  yet  at  the  end  of  these 
researches.  There  are  still  whole  libraries  of  stone 
tablets  under  the  earth  awaiting  the  happy  discoverer, 
and  even  of  those  already  found  only  a  part  have  been 
read  and  given  their  due  value.  So  we  understand 
how  Assyriology  reaches  out  on  all  sides  in  an  ecstacy 


18  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

of  youthful  and  ardent  possession  of  power,  how  it 
investigates  according  to  Babylonian  standpoints  the 
Grecian  and  the  Roman  civilization,  and  the  religion  of 
Israel  also.  That  the  older  sciences  resist  such  Baby- 
Ionizing  attempts  is  conceivable  enough;  Greek  scholars, 
for  example,  will  not  soon  be  able  to  convince  them- 
selves to  admit  as  imported  from  the  Orient  much  that, 
until  now,  they  have  regarded  as  natively  Hellenic.  But 
in  spite  of  all  opposition,  we  may  safely  assume  that 
such  investigations  will  come  in  the  future,  as  far  as  they 
have  not  come  already,  and  will  bear  fruit  for  science. 
On  the  other  hand  also  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  trees 
do  not  grow  up  to  the  heavens.  The  result  will  as- 
suredly not  be  that  the  whole  world  is  Babylonian  at 
the  bottom.  As  considerable  as  the  Babylonian  influence 
may  be,  perhaps  more  considerable  still  than  we  can 
suspect  at  present,  yet  even  at  the  present  time  it  may 
be  said  with  all  safety  that  the  great  nations  of  antiquity, 
who  have  come  later  than  the  Babylonians,  on  whose 
foundation  our  spiritual  culture  is  built, — especially 
Israel,  Hellas,  and  Rome — that  these,  in  spite  of  occa- 
sional and  perchance  deep-reaching  Babylonian  influ- 
ence, have  preserved  their  own  especial  characteristics. 

And  so  we  come  to  our  proper  theme:  What  influence 
has  the  Babylonian  world  had  on  Israel,  especially  on  the 
Israelitic  religion  ? 

But  with  this  we  enter  a  domain  where  Old  Testa- 
ment theology,  which  until  now  could  give  only  refer- 
ences, has  a  full  right  to  enter  the  discussion  with  a  voice 
of  weight.  It  is  necessary  to  state  this  explicitly.  For 
some  Assyriologists — we  say  it  with  regret — have  as- 


ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON  19 

sumed  towards  the  older  science  of  the  Old  Testament 
a  tone  of  their  own,  as  if  the  only  legitimate  way  to  the 
understanding  of  Israel  from  now  on  lay  through  Assyri- 
ology,  and  as  if  in  Old  Testament  research  Assyriology 
could  dispense  with  the  aid  of  the  theologian.  Even 
Delitzsch,  in  spite  of  the  words  of  high  appreciation, 
which  he  at  first  expressed  for  our  science,1  in  the  later 
stages  of  the  debate,  when  he  was  certainly  much  irri- 
tated by  uncomprehending  antagonists — and  this  should 
not  be  overlooked — has  not  kept  himself  entirely  free 
from  this  tone.*  But  now  the  fact  really  is  that  As- 
syriology embraces  already  an  almost  immeasurable  do- 
main, and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  Old  Testament  inves- 
tigation lays  claim  on  the  whole  powers  of  an  ordinary 
mortal,  so  that  only  to  a  genius  for  whom  there  are  no 
such  restrictions  would  it  be  possible  really  to  unite  both 
fields.  We  Old  Testament  theologians  are  accordingly 
admonished  to  learn  from  the  Assyriologist  when  he 
teaches  matters  Babylonian,  even  when  he  explains  the 
usages  of  the  Hebrew  language  from  the  Babylonian. 
But  on  the  other  hand  we  have  the  right  to  insist  that 
the  Assyriologist  likewise  keep  within  the  boundaries  of 
his  own  science.  The  Assyriologist,  who  in  any  way 
compares  Israelitic  matters  with  Babylonion  and  seeks 
to  draw  a  conclusion  from  the  comparison,  places  him- 
self in  a  realm  where  he,  ordinarily,  is  no  expert 
in  the  full  sense  of  the  word.  And  he  should  bear 
that  in  mind.  Even  ' '  Hebraic  philology' '  gives  no  reaj 
inner  understanding  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  So  both 
subjects  are  in  a  friendly  relation,  befitted  for  working 
together.  We  wish  with  all  our  heart  that  both  sciences 


20  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

may  reach  each  other  the  hand  afresh  for  the  common 
task,  where  each  honors  the  other  and  strives  to  learn 
from  the  other.  May  the  Assyriologist,  who  wishes  to 
speak  on  Old  Testament  matters,  call  the  theologian  into 
consultation  if  he  does  not  feel  himself  absolutely  firm 
in  this  subject !  So  DtTitzsch,  whom  we  prize  highly 
as  Assyriologist  and  Hebraic  philologist,  would  have 
done  well,  perhaps,  if  he  had  used  the  advice  of  some 
expert  and  cautious  specialist  in  the  Old  Testament  be- 
fore he  offered  his  opinion  on  Old  Testament  religion  to 
the  general  public.  Perhaps  the  specialist  would  have 
pointed  out  to  him  in  time  where  some  linguistic  over- 
sight had  escaped  him,*  or  where  he  had  quite  omitted 
to  consult  the  original  text.4  He  would  not  have  al- 
lowed hazardous  opinions  concerning  ihe  interpretations 
of  many  Biblical  passages  to  escape  him  [Delitzsch],* 
or  otherwise  would  have  pointed  out  incorrect  or  dubious 
assertions  of  all  kinds,8  he  would  have  taken  pains  to 
explain  our  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the 
history  of  religion,7  he  would  have  tried  to  show  him 
[Delitzsch]  that  he  far  undervalued  the  Old  Testament 
religion,  and  he  would  have  warned  him  against  enter- 
ing into  questions  of  systematic  theology.  If  Delitzsch 
had  followed  all  this  advice,  the  first  lecture  would 
have  taken  a  different  form  in  many  things,  and  the 
second  would  not  have  been  delivered  at  all,  to  the  profit 
both  of  the  subject  and  assuredly  of  Delitzsch! 

Let  us  for  the  moment  now  leave  religion  out  of  the 
question,  and  let  us  ask  whether  we  may  assume  an 
influence  of  Babylon  on  the  culture  of  Israel  f  To  this 
question  we  may  with  all  certainty  answer  yes.  The 


ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON  21 

influence  is  evident  and  must  in  fact  have  been  very 
great.  In  Israel  there  were,  before  all,  Babylonian 
systems  of  measure,  weight  and  money.  Babylonian 
is  the  striking  preference  of  the  civilization  of  Israel — 
even  of  the  literature — for  particular  numbers,  e.  g., 
seven  and  twelve,  a  preference  which  in  Babylonia  is 
explained  from  the  fact  that  particular  numbers  are 
characteristic  of  particular  planet-gods.  And  the  very 
tendency  of  Israel  to  group  literary  productions  accord- 
ing to  these  numbers  has  been  proved  for  Babylon:  the 
great  Babylonian  creation-epic  was  written  on  seven 
tables,  and  the  national  epic  of  Gilgames  on  twelve. 
New  surprises  are  brought  by  the  code  of  Hammurabi, 
the  Babylonian  individual  also  followed  the  precept: 
1 '  Eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for  tooth. ' ' "  Like  the  Israelite, 
he  performed  the  ceremony  of  adoption  by  pronouncing 
the  words  :  "Thou  art  my  son,"  9  and  he  denied  his 
subjection  to  another  by  saying:  "Thou  art  not  my 
father  nor  my  lord."  10  When  Laban  and  Jacob  go  to 
law  with  each  other,  the  legal  basis  of  their  compact  is 
Babylonian  law;  in  case  of  the  death  of  a  sheep  by  wild 
beasts,  the  damage  is  borne  by  the  owner;11  and  he  who 
accuses  another  of  theft  has  the  right  to  institute  a  search 
of  the  other's  house  before  witnesses."  Just  so  in  case 
of  barrenness,  the  Babylonian  married  woman,  like  the 
ancient  Hebrew  woman,  can  give  her  husband  a 
maid  that  she  may  so  raise  up  children.13  The  story  of 
the  slave  Hagar,  who  so  became  a  mother  and  exalted 
herself  over  her  mistress,14  is  a  striking  example  of  Baby- 
lonian law."  But  enough  of  details  !  We  see  suffi- 
ciently from  these  few  that  Israel  has  not  remained  free 
from  Babylonian  influence. 


22  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

Likewise  the  epochs  in  which  Babylonia  has  especi- 
ally affected  Israel  can  be  given;  in  chief  is  the  period 
of  the  height  of  the  Assyrian  kingdom,  about  660,  when 
the  Babylonian  gods,  as  gods  of  the  Assyrian  realm, 
were  esteemed  in  the  whole  circle  of  nearer  Asia  the 
mightiest  divinities.  That  is  the  time  when  even 
Egyptian  cities  bore  officially  Babylonian  names  and 
when  the  Babylonian  gods  were  revered  by  the  state 
of  Judah  ;  their  emblems  and  altars  stood  then  in 
the  temple  of  J"  on  Zion.  And  the  Judaeans  again 
came  under  Babylonian  influence  when  Nebuchadnezzar 
deported  all  "the  officers  and  the  mighty  of  the  land" 
to  Babylonia  and  so  brought  them  into  the  immediate 
sphere  of  Babylon.  Post-exilic  Judaism  is  completely 
subjugated  by  the  influence  of  this  civilization  in  all 
domains  of  the  external  life.  In  the  centuries  following 
the  exile  the  people  had  actually  forgotten  its  native 
tongue  and  adopted  the  Aramaic  language,  which  was 
then  ruling  in  the  whole  culture  of  the  Semites.  It  has 
become  finally  in  this  way  a  completely  different  nation, 
which  to  the  old  Israelite  people  is  bound  by  only  a 
slender  thread. 

But  much  weightier  than  deductions  from  these  later 
epochs  is  a  fact  which  we  know  from  the  Tell  Afmarna 
letters,  namely  that  Canaan  already  was  permeated 
most  thoroughly  by  Babylonian  influence  before  the 
entrance  of  Israel.  Accordingly  when  Israel  entered 
Canaan  and  grew  up  into  the  old  Canaanite  civilization 
it  came  by  that  means  indirectly  under  the  rule  of  Baby- 
lonian civilization.  Therefore  it  is  no  surprise  to  us  if 
the  oldest  stories,  such  as  those  just  mentioned  of  Jacob 


ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON  23 

and  Laban,  of  Hagar  and  Sarah,  presuppose  Babylonian 
legal  conditions. 

And  this  influence  never  ceased  entirely,  for  Israel's 
territory  lay  on  the  great  commercial  roads,  which  led 
from  Babylonia  to  Egypt.  On  such  great  roads  the  mer- 
chants travelled  with  their  wares,  the  conquerors  with 
their  arrnies,  but  there  travelled  likewise  ideas,  myths, 
legends  and  religions.  And  that  the  Babylonian  religion 
so  travelled  to  Canaan  is  no  assumption  but  something 
which  we  can  confirm  by  examples:  the  mountain  Sinai 
probably  is  named  after  the  Babylonian  moon-god  Sin, 
and  Mount  Nebo,  where  Moses  died,  is  named  after  the 
Babylonian  Nebo  (i.  e.  Mercury.) 

On  the  other  hand  it  certainly  would  be  very  per- 
verse to  represent  that  Israel  was  nothing  else  than 
a  Babylonian  province.  Egypt  with  its  primevally 
old  civilization,  which  rivalled  the  Babylonian,  lay 
surely  much  too  near  for  it  not  to  have  had  an  effect 
likewise;  Egyptian  policy  indeed  at  various  times  had 
reckoned  Canaan  and  Syria  as  part  of  its  own  domain. 
We  need  recall  only  the  role  which  Egypt  and  Egyptian 
life  played  in  the  story  of  Joseph  to  recognize  how  much 
ancient  Israel  had  busied  itself  with  Egypt.  But  that 
the  Hebrew,  together  with  the  allied  Phoenicians  and 
Aramaeans,  had  something  of  their  oivn  in  their  civili- 
zation is  evidenced  most  clearly  by  the  fact  that  they 
possessed  their  oivn  writing;  they  wrote  in  neither 
Egyptian  nor  Babylonian.  And  it  is  well  known  that 
tendencies  towards  affinity  reveal  themselves  in  all  civili- 
zation most  clearly  in  the  writing.  Accordingly  we 
must  guard  ourselves  here,  too,  from  exaggeration. 


24  ISRAEL    AND    BABYLON 

Let  us  now  ask  whether  the  religion  of  Israel  also 
displays  Babylonian  traces  ?  That  the  historian  has  the 
right,  yes,  even  the  duty — to  open  this  question,  can, 
after  the  above,  surely  suffer  no  doubt.  But  may  the- 
ology as  such,  may  we  as  Christians,  who  believe  in 
the  revelation  of  God  in  the  religion  of  Israel,  may  we 
take  part  in  such  undertakings?  Does  not  faith  in 
God's  revelation  fall  away  if  we  find  Babylonian  ele- 
ments in  this  religion  ?  Orthodox  opponents  of  Delitzsch 
have  answered  these  questions  affirmatively  and  have 
striven  with  all  energy  against  the  assumption  of 
Babylonian  elements  in  the  Bible.  But  the  extremists 
on  the  other  side  are  of  the  same  opinion  also,  and  for 
just  that  reason  are  rejoicing  over  the  downfall  of  the 
Bible  and  religion.  What  then  is  our  position  to  be  as 
opposed  to  this  ?  A  faith — we  must  say — that  is  worthy 
of  the  name  must  be  brave  and  bold.  What  kind  of  a 
faith  would  that  be  which  is  afraid  of  facts,  which  ab- 
hors scientific  investigation!  If  we  really  believe  in 
God,  Who  reveals  Himself  in  history,  then  we  are  not 
to  dictate  to  the  Highest  what  the  events  are  to  be  in 
which  we  find  Him,  but  we  have  only  to  kiss  humbly 
His  footprints  and  to  revere  His  dealings  in  history. 
If  we  have  to  alter  our  views  of  God's  ways  in  history, 
because  the  facts  teach  us,  well,  we  simply  have  to 
do  so  ! 

If  then  we  should  find  real  Babylonian  elements  in 
the  history  of  Israel,  yes,  even  if  they  were  absolutely 
important  and  weighty  matters,  yet  our  faith  should 
nevertheless  rejoice  that  the  world  is  opening  itself  to  us 
and  that  we  see  God's  rule  where  we  formerly  had  notsus- 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  25 

pected  it.  Judaism,  in  which  matters  religious  and  na- 
tional always  are  closely  connected,  may  be  anxious  lest 
a  pearl  be  stolen  from  its  crown;  but  what  are  the  national 
claims  of  Judaism  to  us?  We  acknowledge  cheerfully 
and  honestly  God's  revelation  wherever  a  human  soul 
feels  itself  near  its  God,  even  though  that  be  in  the 
most  arid  and  strange  forms.  Far  be  it  from  us  to 
limit  God's  revelation  to  Israel!  "The  seed  is  sown 
on  the  whole  wide  land!"  How  much  more  nobly 
than  the  modern  conservatives  have  thought  the  Fathers 
of  the  Christian  Church,  who  in  the  great  and  noble 
heroes  of  Greek  philosophy  have  seen  bearers  of  the 
seed  of  the  divine  Word,  seed  sown  everywhere.  Let 
us  Christians  not  likewise  commit  the  impertinence 
of  Judaism,  which  thinks  to  honor  its  God  by  despis- 
ing and  abusing  all  other  religions.  To  use  a  picture 
from  the  Bible,  the  Israelite-Christian  religion  is  the 
first-born  among  its  brothers.  We  truly  have  no  need 
to  defend  our  own  brothers  jealously — we  ought  to  be 
great-minded  enough  to  recognize — and  even  among 
those  old  Babylonians — what  there  is  to  recognize. 
The  height  and  majesty  of  the  religion  of  Israel  will 
not  thereby  be  lessened,  but  thus  for  the  first  time  be 
placed  properly  in  the  light. 

But  in  any  case,  let  it  be  as  it  may,  we  are  resolved 
to  hear  the  facts,  not  to  resist  them  inwardly,  but  to 
submit  to  them  willingly.  And  therein  lies  our  honor 
as  investigators. 

In  the  first  lecture  Delitzsch  has  named  a  series  of 
points  in  which  the  Babylonian  religion  has  influenced 
supposedly  that  of  Israel  j  these  are  in  the  first  place 


26  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

Biblical  stories — of  the  deluge,  of  the  creation,  and  of 
Paradise.  These  are  said  to  have  come  by  Baby- 
lonian transmission.  How  does  the  case  stand  ? 

The  story  of  the  deluge  is  quite  indubitably  of  Baby- 
lonian origin."  Almost  all  modern  investigators — 
Assyriologists  and  Old  Testament  scholars — agree  in 
this,  and  if  isolated,  all  too  anxious  theologians  struggle 
against  this  indisputable  conclusion,  they  may  well 
consider  whether  they  do  not  do  the  cause  of  faith  they 
defend  more  harm  than  good.  Alas  for  theology  and 
alas  for  our  church  as  well,  if  it  takes  up  the  profession 
of  closing  its  eyes  to  obvious  facts! 

The  facts  of  the  case  are  as  follows:  The  Babylonians, 
too,  have  a  story  of  the  deluge  whose  whole  design 
coincides  in  a  remarkal,e  manner  with  both  the  Biblical 
accounts — both,  for  there  are  in  Genesis  two  stories  of 
the  deluge  [J  and  P]  which  have  been  worked  together 
by  a  third  hand.  The  weightiness  of  the  subject  re- 
quires that  we  pause  here  a  little  longer.  The  Baby- 
lonian story,  which  has  come  down  to  us  in  a  wonder- 
fully poetic  form,  tells  how  once  the  gods  decided  to 
destroy  the  town  Surippak  (situated  probably  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Euphrates).  But  Ea,  the  god  of  wis- 
dom, wished  to  save  his  favorite  Ut-Napistim,  who  in 
wisdom  was  of  equal  birth  with  his  patron  god.  But 
inasmuch  as  Ea  did  not  dare  disclose  the  counsel  of  the 
great  gods  to  a  man,  he  adopted  a  stratagem:  he  ap- 
peared to  the  man  in  the  night,  while  he  was  sleeping 
by  the  wall  of  his  reed-house,  and  commanded  the 
house,  the  watt,  to  build  a  ship!  But  the  man,  wise  as  his 
god,  understood  the  puzzle.  He  built  the  ship.  The  con- 


ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON  27 

fltruction  is  described  minutely.  The  ship  is  divided  into 
different  sections;  within  are  stored  all  manner  of  silver 
and  gold,  seeds  of  every  kind,  his  family  and  his  rela- 
tives, cattle  and  even  artisans.  The  last  feature  should 
be  noted,  which  shows  us  that  a  civilized  people  is  tell- 
ing this  story  ;  according  to  another  Babylonian  recen- 
sion, the  hero  of  the  tale  had  actually  buried  writings 
in  order  to  save  them  until  the  flood  passed.  In  the 
following  it  is  told,  in  poetic,  strongly  mythical  features, 
how  the  deluge  comes.  At  the  appointed  time  Ut- 
Napistim  himself  goes  into  the  ship.  A  black  cloud 
mounts  up;  that  is  the  thundercloud  of  the  god  Hadad. 
Nebo  and  Marduk  stride  in  advance,  the  Anunnaki 
raise  their  torches  aloft.  The  waters  rise  and  break 
loose  on  the  men.  The  gods  themselves  are  terrified  by 
the  fearful  flood;  they  flee  on  high  to  Amis,  heaven,  and 
cower  down  there  like  dogs.  Istar,  the  divine  mother 
of  men,  cries  loudly,  and  all  the  gods  weep.  Finally 
the  flood  ceases.  Ut-Napistim  opens  the  window  ;  he 
looks  out  and  laments  over  the  destruction  of  the  world. 
The  ship  has  settled  firmly  on  a  northern  mountain. 
To  learn  whether  the  land  is  dry  he  sends  out  birds 
three  times.  First  a  dove,  which,  however,  finds  no 
resting  place  and  hence  returns.  Then  a  swallow. 
Finally  a  raven.  The  raven  sees  the  water  receding  and 
does  not  come  back. 

That  shows  Ut-Napistim  that  the  earth  is  now  dry;  he 
leaves  the  ship  and  first  of  all  offers  a  sacrifice.  But 
the  gods  smell  the  savor  and  swarm  like  flies  about 
the  sacrificer.  Even  B6l,  the  chief  instigator  of  the 
flood,  draws  near.  Istar  reproves  him  for  doing  so.  Bel 


28  ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON 

grows  nngry  as  he  sees  the  men  who  have  survived  the 
deluge.  Ea  admits  in  some  part  that  he  has  occasioned 
the  rescue,  and  represents  to  B6l  with  vigorous  irony 
his  folly  in  producing  the  flood.  Finally  B61  recon- 
siders and  displays  his  favor  to  the  rescued  one  by 
raising  him  among  the  gods.  [A  comparison  of  the 
story  in  full  as  given  here  (or  in  any  other  work)  with 
the  portions  used  by  Delitzsch  (tr.  pp.  42  seq. ),  is  in- 
teresting. It  is  scarcely  courteous  to  accuse  a  scientist 
of  garbling,  but  an  unfortunate  impression  of  that  nature 
is  liable  to  arise  in  the  minds  of  the  reader.  Delitzsch's 
"and  so  on"  (p.  45)  certainly  covers  a  great  deal.] 

This  Babylonian  story  has  been  described  here  thus 
fully  in  order  that  the  reader  may  recognize  for  himself  its 
remarkable  similarity  to  the  Biblical  account,  but  at  the 
same  time  its  equally  great  divergence.  In  the  first 
place,  the  points  of  contact:  the  similarity  in  the  course 
of  the  event  is  obvious  at  once — in  spite  of  all  divergences 
in  detail  the  substance  of  the  story  is  the  same  as  a 
whole.  Particularly  striking  is  the  coincidence  of  both 
stories  in  the  sending  forth  of  the  birds.  How  the 
heart  of  the  first  discoverer  of  the  Babylonian  narrative 
must  have  beaten  when  he  came  to  this  passage.  Also  the 
-contact  is  remarkable  in  that  at  the  close  a  sacrifice  is 
offered  and  that  the  gods  smell  the  sacrifice.  Other  points 
occur  as  well,  such  as  that  in  the  second  Hebraic  source 
[P]  as  in  the  Greek-Babylonian  tradition  Ararat  (i.e., 
Armenia)  is  named  as  the  landing-place  of  the  ark,  and 
that  the  hero  of  the  deluge  in  both  cases  is  the  tenth 
of  his  line,  Noah  the  tenth  of  the  patriarchs,  Ut-Napis- 
tim  the  tenth  of  the  kings.  Accordingly  a  relation  must 


ISRAEL  AND    BABYLON  29 

exist  between  the  two  narratives.  If  we  now  consider 
the  inconceivable  age  of  Babylonian  civilization  and  of 
this  deluge  narrative  as  well,  if  we  remember  that  floods 
are  very  natural  precisely  in  Babylonia,  which  lies  close 
to  the  sea  and  is  a  flat  plain  watered  by  great  streams, 
we  cannot  doubt  that  the  Israelite  story  came  from 
the  Babylonian.  [Perhaps  not  entirely  conclusive,  but 
the  statement  is  altogether  probable.]  The  Babylonian 
narrative  of  the  great  flood  has  gone  through  the  world 
of  hither  Asia.  We  now  have,  in  fact,  the  oldest  repre- 
sentation of  Noah's  ark  from  an  excavation  of  ancient 
Etruria  !  A  well-known  attempt  at  evading  this  con- 
clusion should  never  have  been  made, — that,  due  to 
over-anxious  temperaments  and  still  appearing  occasion- 
ally, in  which  it  is  assumed  that  the  Hebraic  account  is 
not  dependent  on  the  Babylonian  but  that  both  are 
versions  of  the  same  events.  For  to  every  student  of 
legend  it  is  quite  indubitable  that  the  narratives,  which 
coincide  so  in  minor  traits,  must  be  related  as  narratives. 
We  say  "to  the  student  of  legends."  For  this  con- 
clusion also  is  unavoidable,  that  the  Hebrew  tradition,  if 
we  derive  it  thus  from  the  Babylonian,  is  not  an  historical 
narrative  in  the  strict  sense,  but  is  poetic,  popular,  i.e.,. 
a  legend.  And,  indeed,  it  is  not  only  Assyriology  that 
teaches  us  this,  but  the  fact  is  evinced  by  entirely  other 
characteristics,  and  should  have  been  long  obvious  to 
ever}'  one  who  lays  claim  to  education  and  good  taste  ! 
The  deluge  account  is  a  legend,  is  poetry,  even  as  there 
are  many  kinds  of  poetry  and  many  kinds  of  legends, 
too,  in  the  Old  Testament.  That  is  not  the  judgment, 
of  irreligion  and  unbelief,  but  a  judgment  which  is  en- 


30  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

tirely  compatible  with  piety  and  true  devotion,  for 
legends  are  the  most  precious  treasure  which  an  ancient 
people  possesses,  and  they  are  particularly  fitted  to  ex- 
press the  thoughts  of  reHgion.  What  a  melancholy 
spectacle  it  is,  if  the  anxious  piety  of  certain  circles,  in 
sad  combination  with  a  pitiful  lack  of  culture,  is  afraid 
of  the  poetry  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  noblest  poetry 
in  the  world  !  But  churches  and  schools  henceforth 
should  not  leave  to  unbelievers  the  task  of  explaining 
to  our  people  the  legendary  portions  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. There  is  a  pressing  need  that  at  least  in  the 
upper  classes  of  the  higher  schools,  as  soon  as  the  possi- 
bility of  historical  intelligence  has  become  manifest  in 
the  scholars,  it  should  be  shown  by  some  prominent 
examples  that  poetic  narratives  are  contained  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  to  this  purpose  the  deluge  story 
might  serve  as  a  particularly  clear  instance. 

We  therefore,  agree  absolutely  with  Delitzsch,  when 
he  assumes  the  dependence  of  the  Biblical  account  of 
the  flood  upon  the  Babylonian;  indeed,  we  regard  it  as 
no  small  merit  of  Delitzsch  that  he  has  been  courageous 
enough  to  announce  in  the  presence  of  that  illustrious 
assembly  this  result  of  research  and,  at  the  same  time, 
to  acknowledge  without  reserve  his  adherence  to  the 
modern  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch."  And  the  merit, 
which  Delitzsch  has  so  obtained  for  himself  by  popu- 
larizing investigation  we  shall  not  forget,  even  if  we  can- 
not agree  with  him  in  many  other  matters.  For  we  cer- 
tainly dissent  from  him  even  in  the  question  as  to  how 
this  dependence  is  to  be  regarded.  Delitzsch  seems  here 
as  in  other  cases  to  incline  to  the  opinion  that  the  Bibli- 


ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON  31 

cal  authors  had  the  Babylonian  legend  lying  before  them 
in  writing,  and  that  it  was  translated  and  revised  by 
them  with  full  deliberation.18  This  opinion  has  too  ex- 
ternal a  relation  to  the  subject  and  for  the  student  of  the 
history  of  legends  does  not  come  into  consideration  ; 
much  more  probable  to  him  is  the  assumption  that  the 
story  came  to  Israel  by  oral  tradition.  And  that  this 
more  natural  assumption  meets  the  case  here  equally 
well  is  proved  by  the  various  deviations  of  the  legend- 
ary material  in  the  Biblical  and  the  Babylonian  accounts. 
Thus,  for  example,  the  names  "ark"  and  "flood" 
["tebha"  and  "mabbul"],  which,  it  is  safe  to  say, 
were  not  invented  by  the  Hebrew  writers,  are  different 
from  the  Babylonian.19  But  much  weightier  than  such  an 
error  is  an  omission  which  Delitzsch  has  disregarded. 
He  has  contented  himself  with  establishing  the  depend- 
ence  of  the  Biblical  matter  on  the  Babylonian,  without 
including  an  investigation  as  to  whether  the  Biblical 
account  as  opposed  to  the  original  has  not  also  a  certain 
«e(f-dependence.  And  just  on  account  of  this  omission, 
the  impression  might  be  created  that  the  Biblical  ac- 
count, because  dependent  on  the  Babylonian,  is  worth- 
less] In  fact  Delitzsch  himself  has  spoken  of  "the 
purer  and  more  original  form  "to  of  the  Babylonian  tra- 
ditions. An  ominous  one-sidedness  is  this,  inherent  in 
Delitzsch' s  lectures,  and  on  account  of  this  he  bears  the 
chief  blame  in  the  reigning  confusion!  For  where  in  all 
the  world  is  it  permitted  merely  to  trace  the  origin  of 
a  subject  without  immediately  adding,  if  it  be  at  all 
possible,  an  investigation  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  subject  has  been  transformed  ?  Our  great  German 


32  ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON 

poets  have  adopted  repeatedly  old  material  for  their 
greater  creations:  Goethe's  "  Faust,"  for  example,  rests 
as  everyone  knows  on  an  older  German  legend.  But 
who  thinks  that  Goethe's  poetry  becomes  of  less  worth 
if  we  have  pointed  out  to  us  the  book  of  folk-lore  as  the 
source  of  "Faust"?  On  the  contrary,  his  power  is 
seen  for  the  first  time  when  we  observe  what  he  has 
made  of  the  uncouth  material.  And  so  it  is  with  the 
Biblical  and  Babylonian  stories  of  the  deluge.  The 
difference  between  the  two  is  almost  immeasureable; 
the)7  are  different  worlds  which  are  expressed  in  them. 
In  the  Babylonian  story,  a  wild,  grotesque  polytheism: 
the  gods  outscheme  and  combat  one  another,  they 
quake  before  the  flood  and  cower  like  dogs  in  the 
\  heaven,  and  they  come  like  flies  to  the  sacrifice.  But 
the  Biblical  story  speaks  of  the  One  God,  Whose  just 
retribution  sends  the  flood,  and  Who  graciously  pro- 
tects the  just  man  after  He  has  tried  him.  Therefore 
in  the  Biblical  narrative  there  is  lacking  also  a  trait 
which  is  contained  in  the  Babylonian,  and  which  is 
perchance  pleasing  to  modern  sentimentalism,  namely 
the  sympathy  of  the  hero  for  the  drowned  men. 
But  what  an  exaggeration  when  Delitzsch  asserts" 
that  the  Babylonian  legend,  on  account  of  this  one 
feature,  "appeals  to  us  with  far  greater  force  than  the 
Biblical  narrative !"  And  our  sympathy  with  this 
feature  will  be,  moreover,  markedly  diminished  when 
we  add  that  it  in  no  way  occurred  to  the  hero  of  the 
flood  to  warn  his  fellow-citizens,  but  rather — barbar- 
ously enough — instead  of  warning  them,  he  announced 
to  them  a  rich  blessing  and  that  on  the  advice  of  his  god  I 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  33 

[  !  !  ]  But  the  narrative  of  the  Bible,  which  founds  the 
deluge  on  the  sins  of  mankind,  is  entirely  too  earnest  to 
know  pity  for  justly  punished  sinners.  Accordingly  the 
Israelite  tradition  had  by  no  means  simply  adopted  the 
Babylonian,  but  on  the  contrary  it  transformed  the  story 
with  the  utmost  completeness;  a  true  marvel  of  the 
world's  history,  it  has  changed  dross  into  gold.  Should 
not  we  then  as  Christians  rejoice,  that  in  these  primitive 
Babylonian  recensions  we  have  found  a  line  to  measure 
how  much  nearer  the  God  in  Whom  we  believe  was  to 
ancient  Israel  than  to  the  Babylonians  ?  Truly,  he  who 
has  a  sense  for  religion  and  its  history  cannot  overlook 
this  potent  difference  between  the  two  stories. 

The  state  of  the  case  for  the  creation  narrative  is  sim- 
ilar, except  that  here  the  proof  for  the  dependence  of 
the  Israelite  tradition  upon  the  Babylonian  is  much 
harder  to  produce.  The  creation  narrative  of  the  Baby- 
lonians tells  how  the  world  was  originally  a  great  sear 
which  the  Babylonians,  in  the  fashion  of  their  myth- 
ology, represent  as  a  powerful  female  primeval  being, 
Ti§,mat.  From  the  union  of  Ti&mat,  with  the  pri- 
maeval father,  Apru,  all  the  gods  sprang.  Now  the 
myth  tells  how  a  strife  arose  between  the  younger  and 
the  older  gods,  until  finally  Marduk,  the  town-god  of 
Babylon,  overcame  Ti&mat,  cut  her  into  two  parts,  and 
made  heaven  and  earth  from  them.  So  the  earth 
is  formed  from  the  primeval  sea. — Whoever  com- 
pares this  primitive  Babylonian  myth  with  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  will  at  first  grasp  scarcely  anything 
but  the  infinite  gulf  between  the  two:  on  the  one 
hand  the  heathen  divinities,  inflamed  in  a  wild  struggle- 


34  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

against  one  another;  on  the  other  the  One  Who  speaks 
and  it  cornea  to  pass.  None  the  less,  there  are  certain 
traces  which  make  it  probable  to  us  that  the  Baby- 
lonian account  lies  behind  the  Biblical,  even  if  both 
must  have  been  severed  by  a  very  long  space  of 
-time.  The  Hebraic  account  has  several  remnants 
which  show  us  that  it  once  must  have  been  mythical; 
here  also  the  world  was  originally  water,  and  the  ex- 
pression tehom,  which  is  used  here,  is  ultimately  the 
Fame  as  the  Babylonian  tidmat.  And  in  the  Hebraic 
account,  also,  the  world  is  created  so  that  the  original 
primeval  waters  are  divided  into  two  parts,  heaven  and 
earth.  Accordingly,  in  spite  of  all  deviation  in  the  re- 
ligious ideas,  a  related  material !  Now  here,  too,  the  de- 
pendence of  the  Hebraic  on  the  Babylonian  is  probable, 
for  the  manner  in  which  the  world  arises  here  cor- 
responds entirely  to  the  Babylonian  climate,  in  which 
in  the  winter,  water  holds  sway  everywhere,  until  the 
god  of  the  spring  sun  appears,  who  parts  the  water  and 
creates  heaven  and  earth.  But  that  the  story  of  the 
strife  of  the  light-god  against  the  waters  of  the  primeval 
age  and  against  the  wild  monsters  was  known  in  Canaan 
.likewise,  is  shown  by  certain  references  by  prophets, 
poets,  apocalyptists,  where  this  struggle  has  been  trans- 
ferred to  J".M  Such  references  are  valuable  in  this 
-connection,  because  they  represent  the  links  between 
the  grotesque  Babylonian  myth  and  the  late  Hebraic 
.account  of  Genesis  1.  Accordingly,  we  can  assume 
also  a  dependence  of  Genesis  1  on  the  Babylonian 
account,  as  far  as  regards  the  matter,  but  the  original 
iar  outweigh  the  adopted  portions.  Therefore,  this 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  35 

assumption  as  well  serves  only  to  show  the  peculiar 
height  of  the  religion  of  Israel. 

But  again  this  consideration  teaches  that  the  story  of 
creation,  not  otherwise  than  that  of  the  deluge  is  a  poem; 
that  also  is  an  acknowledgment  against  which  no  one 
to  whom  our  church  is  dear  should  strive;  it  would  not 
be  too  much  to  desire  and  the  beginning  of  a  highly 
necessary  reformation,  if  in  the  book  of  Biblical  history 
the  first  section  should  be  headed:  The  Poem  of  Crea- 
tion. May  students  consider  this  suggestion.  There  is 
still  time.  Perhaps  the  hour  is  coming  when  it  will 
be  said  too  late  ! 

Likewise  the  tradition  of  the  patriarchs  up  to  the 
deluge  is,  as  may  be  assumed  with  great  probability,  of 
Babylonian  origin,  the  Hebraic  names  in  part  can  be 
regarded  as  direct  translations  of  the  Babylonian  kings. 
[Enos  =  man  =  ame'lu;  Cainan  =  smith  =  work- 
master  =  ummanu;  Enoch  corresponds  to  En-me-dur- 
an-ki  in  his  attributes;  Methusalah  =  man  of  Selah  = 
man  of  Sin  =  ame"l-sin  (but  Methusalah  may  mean 
"man  of  the  javelin").  These  names  are  the  3d, 
4th,  7th  and  8th  in  both  lists,  and  the  tenth  in  both  is 
the  hero  of  the  flood,  although  his  names  in  the  two 
lists  have  no  etymological  connection.]  This  explana- 
tion is  significant,  because  in  this  manner  a  light  falls 
on  the  great  ages  ascribed  to  the  patriarchs,  which  have 
given  rise  to  such  discussions;  the  Babylonian  tradition 
contains  in  this  place  still  greater  numbers,  and  these 
are  explained  by  an  astronomical  chronology  of  the 
world. 

Of  the  primitive  myths  of  the  Bible,  Delitzsch  has 


36  ISBAEL   AND    BABYLON 

designated  that  of  Paradise  as  Babylonian  also,  but 
only  on  the  ground  of  an  old  Babylonian  picture  [on  a 
cylinder-seal],  whose  meaning  is  entirely  uncertain." 
[Tr.,  p.  56,  reproduces  the  drawing — also  in  many 
other  works.] 

Following  Eberhard  Schrader,  Delitzsch  further  com- 
pares the  legend  of  the  madness  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  who 
on  account  of  his  pride  was  driven  from  men  and  dwelt 
with  the  beasts  of  the  field,  with  a  Grseco-Babylonian  tra- 
dition, according  to  which  the  king,  come  to  the  height 
of  his  power,  predicted  a  foreign  conqueror  and  wished 
that  he  [the  conqueror]  might  be  hunted  through  the 
desert,  where  the  wild  beasts  and  birds  roam  about.  Both 
traditions  have  a  certain  similarity,  but  this  is  certainly 
much  too  weak  to  admit  of  a  dependence  of  the  Biblical 
upon  the  Babylonian  being  safely  asserted.  [And 
most  dogmatically  it  is  by  Delitzsch.]  Much  closer  is 
the  connection  of  the  Jewish  legend  with  the  Baby- 
lonian of  Eabani,  who  lived  among  the  beasts  like  a 
beast;  his  hair  covered  his  whole  body,  and  spread  out 
like  wheat  stalks,  and  he  ate  grass  with  the  gazelles. 
And  here,  too,  Delitzsch  follows  the  superficial  concep- 
tion that  the  writer  revised  the  foreign  legend;"  the 
question  could  be  at  the  utmost  of  a  transformation  in 
oral  tradition — I  believe  that  all  students  of  folk-lore 
will  agree  with  me  in  that.  But  Delitzsch  actually 
wishes  that  the  Babylonian  origin  and  ' '  the  purer  and 
more  original  form  of  this  story"  should  be  imparted 
to  the  young  as  soon  as  they  hear  of  the  corresponding 
Biblical  story!  But  the  startling  expression  that  we 
have  been  "  burdened  by  tradition  "  by  the  represents- 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  37 

tion  of  the  madness  of  the  "brutified"  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, ought  to  have  been  avoided  in  any  case;  did 
Delitzsch  ever  regard  this  story  as  anything  but  a 
legend  ? 

Just  so  is  everything  that  he  marshals  in  so  flowery 
a  way  on  the  origin  of  faith  in  a  life  after  death  dubious 
in  the  extreme.  Much  rather  the  ancient  Babylonians 
and  Hebrews  agreed  in  the  belief,  that  the  soul  after 
death  enters  into  the  dark  under-world  [She6l]  from 
which  there  is  no  rescue  for  ordinary  men.  The  belief 
in  the  resurrection  does  not  yet  belong  in  general  to  the 
Old  Testament,  but  arose  first  in  the  post-canonical 
times  and  in  any  case  not  under  the  influence  of  the  old 
Babylonian  religion,  [A  positive  statement  regarding 
resurrection  of  the  body  appears  first  in  Second  Macca- 
bees (7U,  etc.),  but  the  date  is  very  uncertain  and  the 
book  may  be  later  than  the  Crucifixion.  Resurrection 
(of  Israel)  is  foretold  in  Daniel  12'  (ca.  165  B.  C.),  and 
traces  of  the  doctrine  go  back  to  Exilic  time,  but  it  never 
was  held  universally  by  Israel,  cf.  St.  Matthew  22a,  etc.] 

It  is  correct  that  the  belief  in  angels  recalls  Babylonian 
opinions,  particularly  in  the  belief  as  it  appears  in  post- 
exilic  Judaism  ;  we  can  prove  that  for  the  seven  arch- 
angels and  surmise  it  for  the  Cherubim  and  Seraphim. 
But  whether  the  belief  in  angels  as  a  whole  originated 
from  Babylonia  is  another  question,  which  may  well  be 
propounded  provisionally,  but  which  can  scarcely  be 
answered. 

The  derivation  of  the  Hebrew  Sabbath  from  the  Baby- 
lonian has  stirred  up  much  dust.  Here  also  we  must 
warn  the  laity  against  unnecessary  excitement,  for  what 


38  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

is  the  Sabbath  to  us  ?  The  high  and  pure  religion  of 
Christianity,  as  it  has  been  renewed  in  the  Reformation 
of  Luther,  knows  no  holy  days  1  [It  might  be  well  to 
add  "  ex  jure  divmo."]  Jesus  boldly  transgressed  the 
Sabbath  law,  and  the  Apostle  says  :  "  Let  no  man  judge 
you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holyday,  or 
of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  sabbath  days."  (Colos- 
sians  2"  [A  V.]  The  Christian  Sunday  is  not  a  trans- 
ference of  the  Sabbath  but  something  new  and  different. 
According  to  the  history  of  religion,  however,  the  case  is 
this.  The  observance  of  such  a  holy  day  in  the  great  his- 
torical religion  is  a  remnant  of  an  older  time,  when  men 
believed  in  gods,  who  according  to  their  nature  belonged  to 
certain  days.  From  the  Babylonian  discoveries  we  have 
not  learned  the  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Sabbath;  for 
such  institutions  of  a  cult  are  generally  much  too  old  for 
so  young  a  people  as  Israel  to  give  an  historic  tradi- 
tion of  their  origin.  So  it  is  not  remarkable  if  even 
the  oldest  Israel  knew  as  little  of  the  origin  of  the 
Sabbath  as  of  circumcision,  abstaining  from  blood,  and 
many  other  ceremonies."  But  if  there,  nevertheless, 
exist  in  Israel  explanation  of  such  customs,  as  for  the 
Sabbath  the  well-known  explanation  that  the  Sabbath 
is  holy  because  God  hallowed  it  by  resting  after  the 
creation,  so  those  explanations  are  supplied  afterwards, 
and,  while  they  may  be  as  spiritual  and  deep  as  they 
may,  they  do  not  come  into  consideration  for  the  ex- 
planation of  the  ceremonies  themselves.  Accordingly 
if  we  find  among  the  Babylonians  any  parallel  for  the 
Sabbath,  we  shall  simply  rejoice  over  the  enrichment  of 
our  knowledge.  And  such  a  parallel  we  certainly  may 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  3i> 

assume,  even  with  some  certain  provisional  reserve,"  and 
suppose  that  the  Hebraic  Sabbath  originated  from  Baby- 
lonia, the  classic  land  for  the  honor  of  the  planets  and 
their  characteristic  days.  But  it  is  assuredly  a  great 
excess  again  when  Delitzsch  says  that  we  owe  the  bless- 
ings contained  in  the  Sabbath  (or  Sunday)  rest  to  that 
ancient  civilization."  For  such  days  take,  on  the  other 
hand,  when  they  pass  over  into  a  different  religion,  an 
entirely  different  character  !  The  ancient  Babylonians 
observed  the  Sabbath  as  a  fast-day,  on  which  certain 
transactions  should  be  avoided.  The  ancient  Hebraic 
Sabbath  contains  nothing  of  such  ideas  but  was  held  as 
a  joyous  holiday.  And  how  can  one  actually  say  of 
Sunday  that  its  wealth  of  blessings  came  originally  from 
Babylon  ? 

We  pass  over  all  these  minor  matters,  of  which  very 
many  more  still  might  be  named,28  and  come  to  the  main- 
question,  whether  and  how  far  the  Babylonians  were 
monotheisls.  Here  we  must,  in  the  first  place,  state  that 
there  have  been  different  forms  of  monotheism  in  many 
people  and  at  various  times,  but  in  spite  of  that  the 
people  of  Israel  is  and  remains  the  classic  people  of 
monotheism;  this  monotheism  which  we  know,  or  more 
exactly,  which  was  the  precursor  of  ours,  originates 
from  Judaism;  and  in  Israel  this  monotheism  originated 
entirely  independently  [autochthon],  we  know  the  his- 
tory of  its  origin  in  Israel  very  well.  The  religion  of 
Babylon  is,  on  the  other  hand,  indubitably  polytheistic,  and7 
in  fact  it  has  a  thoroughly  crass,  grotesque  pantheon. 
If  then  in  Babylon  something  should  be  found  that 
eavors  of  monotheism,  that  is  the  exception.  The  great 


40  ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON 

historic  effect  which  results  from  it  is,  in  this  point,  not  due  to 
Babylon,  but  to  Israel.  Now  Delitzsch  has  referred  to 
several  details;  to  begin  with,  to  certain  names  com- 
pounded with,  el  =  God,  such  as  "God  with  me,"  "I 
call  on  God,"  "God  is  great,"  etc.,  which  especially 
among  Northsemitic  immigrants  were  used  at  the  time 
of  Hammurabi.  Delitzsch  assumes  that  these  North- 
Semites  were  related  to  the  Hebrews,  and  like  these 
were  monotheists  from  the  oldest  time;  his  opinion  is 
accordingly  in  no  way  that  the  Israelite  monotheism 
originated  in  Babylonia.  And  in  the  meantime  all  these 
combinations  are  without  application,  something  De- 
litzsch could  have  learned  from  any  student  of  the  his- 
tory of  religion;  for,  e.  g.y  the  polytheistic  Greeks  had 
names  like  Theophilos  =  dear  to  God,  Theopompos  = 
sent  by  God,  Theodosios  =  gift  of  God,  Theoxenos  = 
guest-friend  of  God,  etc.  The  likewise  polytheistic 
Phoenicians,  Aramaeans,  and  Arabs,  have  very  many 
names  that  are  compounded  with  el  =  God:  such  as 
'Aimel  =  eye  of  God,  Channel  =  Grace  of  God,  'Aliel 
=  God  is  exalted,  etc.79  In  passing  it  may  be  remarked 
also  that  everything  that  Delitzsch  observes  regarding 
the  Babylonian  name  Jahu-ilu,  =  J"  is  God,so  is  dub- 
ious in  the  extreme.  The  whole  reading  or  meaning 
is,  by  the  judgment  of  many  co-specialists  of  Delitzsch, 
very  questionable.*1  But  in  the  distinguished  position 
in  which  Delitzsch  spoke — this  we  ought  not  to  refrain 
from  saying — he  should  have  been  at  special  pains  to 
utter  only  assured  facts.  Now  there  is  still  out  of  the 
Neo-Babylonian  time  a  text  in  which  different  gods 
are  made  equivalent  to  Marduk  [in  different  aspects] , 


ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON  41 

and  this,  with  Delitzsch,  is  certainly  to  be  regarded  as 
monotheistic."  From  this  place  it  is  'shown  that  Baby- 
lonian priestly  wisdom,  at  a  certain  point  of  history, 
has  recognized  that  the  different  deities  are  at  the  bot- 
tom manifestation-forms  of  the  same  Divine  Essence,  a 
view  which  the  Greek  popular  philosophy  held  also  at 
the  time  of  Jesus.  We  are  glad  at  such  a  spiritual  height, 
which  towers  aloft  through  all  the  confused  folly  of 
polytheism  up  to  the  One.  Certainly  such  an  under- 
standing of  the  sages  in  Babylonia  affected  the  religion 
proper  even  as  little  in  Babylonia  as  in  Greece,  which 
religion  has  much  rather  remained  in  polytheism.  So 
with  this  monotheistic  religion  of  Israel  this  monotheis- 
tic speculation  is  to  be  compared  only  from  afar. 

The  reader  will  have  noticed  that  thus  far  we  have 
spoken  only  of  pure  details.  This  has  its  good  reason. 
For  at  present  the  Babylonian  religion  is  known  to  us 
only  fragmentarily,  while  the  Israelite  certainly  lies  be- 
fore us  clearly  in  its  essential  features  and  its  historic 
epochs.  So  what  we  can  give  at  the  present,  if  we  wish 
to  discuss  the  influence  of  Babylonia  on  the  religion  of 
Israel,  is  then,  at  the  most,  that  we  define — and  that 
naturally  with  all  reserve — those  domains  in  which  a 
transfer  of  Babylonian,  more  or  less  religious  matter  to 
Israel  can  have  taken  place.  Those  are,  before  all, 
legends  and  myths;  then  institutions  of  civilization, 
which  perhaps  in  wide  extent  are  of  Babylonian  origin; 
then  legal  institutions,  which  indeed  of  old  were  con- 
nected always  in  some  way  with  religion;  so  cosmology, 
the  conceptions  of  the  nature  and  divisions  of  the 
world;  then  popular  beliefs  as  to  heavenly,  terrestial, 


42  ISRAEL   AMD    BABYLON 

and  subterrestial  beings  of  all  sorts,  of  angels  and 
demons;  then  computations  of  the  duration  and  epochs 
of  the  world,  prophetic  and  apocalyptic  picturings. 
The  most  valuable  pieces  are  perhaps  religious  songs, 
which  have  wandered  through  the  lands  in  company 
with  certain  things  pertaining  to  culture;  we  have 
Babylonian  psalms,  which,  even  if  vastly  inferior  re- 
ligiously to  the  Hebraic,  are  none  the  less  related  to 
them  in  form.  But  the  most  of  this  material,  at  least 
in  Israel,  is  connected  but  loosely  with  the  proper  re- 
ligion, or  else,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  narratives  of  the 
Deluge  and  Creation,  and  as  easily  can  be  shown  in  the 
religious  songs,  has  been  made  Israelitic  in  the  strong- 
est fashion.  If  we  look  on  the  essential  and  determina- 
tive facts,  we  must  acknowledge  that  Israel's  religion  in 
the  classical  period  is  independent  from  that  of  Babylon. 

Likewise  a  parallel  between  the  two  religions  can  not  be 
drawn  as  yet.  Delitzsch  has  tried  it  but  has  remained 
among  details.  And  in  the  process — we  appeal  in  this 
matter  to  the  judgment  of  all  students — he  has  con- 
ducted himself  in  an  entirely  ex  parte  manner;  he  exalts 
the  Babylonian,  and  debases  Israel  as  far  as  possible. 
So  it  is  a  great  injustice  when  Delitzsch  asserts  that 
"  the  same  naive  representations  of  the  godhead"  are 
found  in  Israel  and  Babylonian  [p.  175]  :  as  in  Babylon 
the  gods  eat  and  drink  and  even  betake  themselves  to  rest, 
BO  J"  goes  forth  in  the  cool  of  the  evening  to  walk  in 
Paradise,  and  takes  pleasure  in  the  sweet  scent  of  Noah's 
sacrifice.  But  now  there  can  be  no  doubt  in  the  un- 
prejudiced judge  that  the  idea  the  Babylonian  had  of 
God  was  by  far  more  naive  that  the  Israelitic  ;  one  need 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  43 

think  only  of  the  manner  in  which  the  gods  appear  in 
the  story  of  the  deluge,  where  they  cower  like  dogs  in 
heaven.  Even  in  the  Old  Testament  there  are  occasion- 
ally marked  anthropomorphisms,  but  these  are  in  no 
way  as  crass  as  is  customory  in  Babylon  ;  that  J"  eats 
and  drinks  never  was  said  by  historic  Israel.  Such 
downright  anthropomorphisms  are  in  the  Old  Testament 
archaisms,  which  have  remained  in  the  primeval  legends 
of  the  Deluge  and  of  Paradise,  but  which  have  been  sur- 
mounted by  the  advancing  religion.  This  conduct  of 
Delitzsch  may  have  been  excusable  on  account  of  his 
being  angered  by  the  ignorant  warmth  of  certain  theo- 
logical opponents.  But  we  wish  to  be  not  partisan,  but 
as  objective  and  as  just  as  possible.  We  have  by  no 
means  the  purpose  to  gloss  over  the  obvious  weaknesses 
of  Israel,  which  occasionally  come  to  expression  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  we  have  in  no  way  the  need  of  find- 
ing everything  noble  and  fair  in  Israel.  The  Jewish 
monotheism,  for  example,  this  we  frankly  admit,  is 
frequently  sullied  by  a  hate,  and  often  a  blood-red  hate 
of  the  heathen,  a  fact  that  we  may  understand  histori- 
cally from  the  miserable  condition  of  the  continually  op- 
pressed Jews,  but  one  which  we  in  no  case  wish  to 
adopt  into  our  religion  ;  a  bigot  may  defend  the  prayer 
"  pour  out  Thy  wrath  upon  the  heathen  "  but  not  so 
we.  On  the  other  hand  we  certainly  do  not  wish  to 
combat  what  the  Babylonians  have  achieved,  least  of  all 
in  religion.  The  hymns  of  the  Babylonians  to  their  great 
gods,  which  often  rise  to  a  high  pitch,  and  their  pene- 
tential  psalms,  in  which  not  seldom  a  strong  feeling  of 
sin  resounds,  meet  a  receptive  ear  in  us  ;  we  rejoice  over 


44  ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON 

the  ancient,  admirable  civilization  of  this  people,  from 
whom  Israel  could  have  learned  much.  But  if  the 
Babylonian  and  the  Biblical  religions  are  to  be  com- 
pared, what  neutral  can  doubt  with  which  side  he  is  to 
range  himself?  There  the  crass  polytheism,  here  in  the 
classical  time  monotheism ;  the  Babylonian  religion  re- 
plete with  witchcraft,  which  lies  deep  under  the  feet  of 
the  great  prophets  of  Israel ;  there  the  cult  of  images, 
here  strict  iconoclasm  in  the  Jewish  worship3* ;  there 
the  connection  of  the  gods  with  nature,  but  here  the 
religious  thought  raises  itself  in  the  classic  period  to  the 
belief  in  One  God,  Who  stands  above  the  world  ;  there 
the  religious  prostitution,  which  once  overran  Israel  as 
well,  but  here  is  abhorred  through  the  holy  fury  of  the 
prophets!  The  fairest  possession  of  Israel,  however,  is 
the  theme  of  her  prophets,  that  God  desires  no  offering  or 
ceremonies,  but  piety  of  the  heart  and  justice  of  deeds  ; 
this  most  inner  connection  of  religion  with  morality  is  be- 
fore all  the  reason  through  which  Israel's  religion  mounts 
exalted  above  all  other  religion  of  the  ancient  Orient ! 
This  is  Israel's  power  over  man  and  it  remains  so,  even 
if  Judaism  has  become  again  untrue  to  this  mighty  idea. 
And  where  has  the  Babylonian  world  forms  like  the 
great  religious  figures  of  the  prophets,  the  indignant 
Amos,  the  majestic  Isaiah,  the  deep  and  tender  Jere- 
miah, to  say  absolutely  nothing  of  Moses  and  Elijah. 
The  prophets  of  Israel  in  the  exile  felt  themselves  high 
exalted  above  the  religion  of  Babylon,  which  they  had 
before  their  eyes,  despite  the  pomp  and  parade  with 
which  it  was  clothed,  despite  that  these  gods  were  the 
gods  of  the  world-kingdom,  despite  that  Judah  was 


ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON  45 

thrown  in  the  dust.  They  certainly  have  not  judged  it 
justly,  even  as  is  wont  to  happen  in  the  strife  of  religion, 
but  fundamentally  they  were  right.  B£l  boweth  down, 
Nebo  stoopeth,  but  through  the  milleniums  resounds  the 
joyous  shout  of  the  Singer  of  Israel ;  "  Who,  0  Yahwe, 
is  like  Thee  among  the  gods  "?  The  gods  of  the  Baby- 
lonians passed  away  when  their  time  came  ;  to  the  God 
of  little  Judea  the  hearts  of  the  heathen  turned  when 
the  time  was  fulfilled.  This  most  mighty  historical 
event,  under  whose  influence  the  whole  world-history 
afterwards  is  developed,  must  have  had  a  most  mighty 
cause;  and  what  is  this  cause,  what  else  can  it  be  than 
the  decisive  pre-eminence  of  this  religion  over  the  other  ? 
And  now  at  the  close  of  the  question  :  may  we 
continue  to  speak  of  the  revelation  of  God  in  Israel? 
Delitzsch  has  denied  it.  In  this  regard  it  is  surely  seen 
most  clearly  that  a  special  knowledge  of  theology  proper 
is  lacking  in  him  ;  his  position  therefore,  lacks  clearness 
and  firmness  ;  we  will  try  to  make  his  attitude  clear, 
in  the  hope  of  dealing  correctly  with  at  least  the  vital 
point.  The  conception  of  revelation,  which  he  postu- 
lates, is  the  supernatural,  old-ecclesiastical  theory,  which 
men  still  are  accustomed  to  associate  popularly  with 
this  word.  According  to  this,  revelation  stands  in 
mental  [begrifHich]  contrast  to  everything  human  ;  the 
theory  that  the  Old  Testament  religion  is  "revelation" 
consequently  excludes  in  this  sense  all  human  co-opera- 
tion and  historical  development.  Delitzsch  is  at  pains 
to  combat  this  theory  that  the  Old  Testament  religion 
in  such  a  sense  rests  upon  revelation,  and  he  does  it  by 
pointing  to  all  kinds  of  contradictions  and  difficulties 


46  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

in  the  Old  Testament.  For  instance,  he  shows  that  the 
God,  Who  despises  all  external  sacrifice,  according  to 
testimony  of  the  prophets,  could  not  possibly  have  pre- 
scribed the  ceremonial  law  of  the  later  Jewish  work 
known  as  the  ''Priests'  Code."  Or  he  points  to  the 
numerous  heathen  parallels  which  there  are  for  Old  Tes- 
tament laws, — Sabbath,  new-moons,  shewbread,  circum- 
cision are  the  property  not  only  of  Israel  but  of  other 
people  as  well.  Or  he  shows  that  there  are  also  purely 
secular  works  in  the  Old  Testament,  such  as  the  Song  of 
Songs,  a  collection  of  Hebraic  love-songs,  which  can 
scarcely  have  anything  at  all  to  do  with  religion.  We 
may  adopt  this  reasoning  of  Delitzsch  most  properly,  even 
if  we  must  make  exception  in  some  particulars.  We  hail 
Delitzsch  as  a  colleague  in  the  battle  against  the  delusion 
of  assuming  that  the  Old  Testament  is  verbally  inspired, 
as  though  its  religion  were  in  some  way  fallen  from 
heaven,  and  had  grown  without  human  aid  and  without 
history.  Only,  most  assuredly,  we  hail  him  without 
burdening  ourselves  in  any  way  with  this,  largely  su- 
perficial and  even  uncivil,  argument.  For  this  col- 
league comes  somewhat  late.  The  theologian  who  knows 
the  history  of  his  science  knows  that  such  polemics 
against  supernaturalism  have  existed  for  two  centuries, 
and  often  have  been  uttered  with  much  greater  material 
than  the  scanty  store  that  Delitzsch  has  hastily  raked 
together.  And  these  century-old  polemics  bore  their 
fruits  years  ago.  The  opponents  whom  Delitzsch  com- 
bats exist  no  more — at  least  not  in  academic  circles  ;  and 
the  doors  he  breaks  apart  with  such  beautiful  zeal  have 
stood  open  for  years.  Theology  has  on  all  sides  dropped 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  47 

that  orthodox  belief  in  inspiration,  and  dropped  it  long 
ago.  Likewise  the  belief  that  the  ancient  Israelite  re- 
ligion has  arisen  not  historically  but  purely  super-his- 
torically,  super-naturally,  is  defended  by  hardly  a  single 
evangelical  German  theologian.  That  is  not  unknown 
even  to  Delitzsch.  There  are  remnants  of  the  old  view 
yet  at  work,  sometimes  in  circles  that  know  not  much  of 
scientific  theology;  and  frequently,  even  among  theolo- 
gians, the  principal  difference  between  the  old  super- 
natural theory  and  the  modern  based  on  the  history  of 
religion  is  not  recognized  with  full  clearness.  People 
often  satisfy  themselves  with  half  compromises.  So  we 
may  leave  Delitzsch  unmolested  in  this  opinion,  only  let 
him  choose  his  terms  more  gently,  as  is  befitting  when 
one  deals  with  such  holy  things,  and  let  him  not  in- 
dulge in  the  opinion  that  he  has  u  opened  up"  an  im- 
portant theological  question.84 

But  now  Delitzsch  thinks  he  has  overthrown  revelation 
entirely  by  proving  "revelation  "  in  this  sense  to  be  im- 
possible. "Revelation"  to  him  is  nothing  but  the 
supernatural ;  he  does  know  that  another  concept  of 
revelation  has  existed  among  theologians  for  a  long  time; 
but  he  can  regard  this  as  only  an  "  attenuation  "  of  the 
old  ecclesiastical  belief.*5 

What  is  the  case  regarding  this  modern  conception  of 
revelation  ?  We  say  in  advance  that  in  discussing  such 
a  subject  we  shall  leave  the  ground  of  historical  science 
and  speak  on  the  question  of  how  historical  matter  is  to 
be  judged  from  the  standpoint  of  religion,  of  faith.  Now 
the  scientific  theology  of  to-day  believes  it  possesses  a 
deeper  understanding  of  revelation,  according  to  which 


48  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

the  divine  and  the  human  do  not  exist  together  in  mere 
external  relations,  but  are  bound  together  internally.  The 
history  of  revelation  proceeds  therefore,  among  men,  ac- 
cording to  the  same  psychological  laws  as  govern  other 
human  events.  But  in  the  depth  of  this  development 
the  eye  of  faith  sees  God,  Who  speaks  to  the  soul,  and 
Who  reveals  Himself  to  him  who  seeks  Him  with  a 
whole  heart.  We  recognize  God's  revelation  in  the 
great  persons  of  religion,  who  receive  the  holy  secret  in 
their  inmost  hearts  and  announce  it  with  tongues  of 
flame;  we  see  God's  revelation  in  the  great  changes  and 
wonderful  providences  of  history.  The  faith  of  children 
thinks,  of  old  and  now,  that  God  wrote  the  tables  of  the 
law  with  his  own  hand  and  passed  them  to  Moses;  the 
faith  of  the  mature  knows  that  God  writes  His  com- 
mandments with  His  finger  in  the  hearts  of  His  servants. 
Now  have  we  the  right  to  see  such  a  revelation  in  Is- 
rael's religion  ?  Surely  !  For  what  sort  of  a  religion  ia 
it  ?  A  true  miracle  of  God's  among  the  religions  of  the  an- 
cient Orient !  What  streams  flow  here  of  all-overcoming 
enthusiasm  for  the  majestic  God,  of  deep  reverence  be- 
fore His  holy  sway,  and  of  intrepid  trust  in  His  faith- 
fulness !  He  who  looks  upon  this  religion  with  believ- 
ing eyes  will  confess  with  us:  To  this  people  God  hath 
disclosed  Himself  !  Here  God  was  more  closely  and 
clearly  known  than  anywhere  else  in  the  ancient  Orient, 
until  the  time  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  !  This  is  the 
religion  on  which  we  depend,  from  which  we  have  ever 
to  learn,  on  whose  foundation  our  whole  civilization  is 
built ;  we  are  Israelites  in  religion  even  as  we  are 
Greeks  in  art  and  Romans  in  law.  Then  if  the  Israelites 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON  49 

are  far  beneath  the  Babylonians  in  many  matters  of 
civilization,  none  the  less  are  they  far  above  them  in  re- 
ligion ;  Israel  is  and  remains  the  people  of  revelation.  Now 
is  that  really  an  ' '  attenuation  ' '  of  the  concept  of  reve- 
lation, as  Delitzsch  thinks  ?  No,  we  believe  that  that 
is  a  spiritualization  and  deepening  of  it  \ 

But  psychologically  Delitzsch  may  be  understood  as 
follows  :  In  the  circles  from  which  he  comes  and  in 
which  he  was  formerly  educated  in  theology,  he  ac- 
quired only  a  rather  crass — or  to  say  it  in  plain  but 
vigorous  language — a  rather  mythological  concept  of  reve- 
lation. And  now  that  he  sees  the  untenability  of  such 
opinions,  he  turns  against  this  conception  with  the  zeal 
of  wrath,  without  having  really  surmounted  it  in  his 
heart  and  without  having  attained  a  satisfactory  atti- 
tude towards  both  science  and  religion.  Such  a  result 
is  common  in  such  cases.  [Prof.  Gunkel's  reference 
seems  to  be  to  the  late  Franz  Delitzsch,  the  father  of  the 
lecturer  (Friederich  Delitzsch.)  He  was  one  of  the 
foremost  scholars  of  the  last  generation  in  both  Hebraic 
philology  and  Old  Testament  theology  and  is  univer- 
sally known  as  a  commentator.  His  attitude  was  con- 
servative but  not  uncompromisingly  so,  cf.  p.  217  of 
' '  Babel  and  Bible. ' '  The  present  translator  feels  bound 
to  say  that  if  Prof.  Gunkel  could  have  avoided  this 
apparent  insinuation,  it  would  probably  add  to  the  good 
temper  of  all  parties  concerned.  However,  the  reference 
was  needed  to  emphasize  his  argument  here.]  So 
during  his  year's  truce  [he  was  in  Babylon]  he  allowed 
himself  to  be  driven  by  his  theological  opponents  into 
a  much  more  dogmatic  position  than  the  one  he  assumed 


50  ISRAEL   AND    BABYLON 

originally;  for  in  his  first  lecture  he  uttered  the  words 
that  we  have  yet  to  free  the  religion  of  the  prophets, 
psalmists,  and  Jesus,  from  ' '  those  purely  human  con- 
ceptions"3" which  still  cling  to  it ;  at  that  time  he 
seems  to  have  believed  still  that  the  religion  of  the 
prophets,  as  a  religion,  was  not  "purely  human." 
Even  now  he  distinguishes  in  the  Book  of  Jonah  the 
"  human  form  "  from  the  proper  content;  the  content, 
accordingly,  if  we  understand  Delitzsch  rightly,  is  not 
"human.'"1  It  is  quite  inconceivable  [does  Gunkel 
mean  conceivable  f\  that  Delitzsch  does  not  wish  to  cause 
harm  to  our  faith  in  God  and  true  religiousness  by  his 
denial  of  revelation*8;  but  is  our  faith  in  God  imagina- 
ble without  the  belief  that  this  God  reveals  himself  to 
man  in  history  ?  Or  does  Delitzsch  acknowledge  in 
Jesus  an  absolutely  supernatural  revelation  ?  We  may 
perhaps  assume  so  from  the  manner  in  which  he  speaks 
of  Jesus,  in  any  case  it  will  be  a  great  inconsistency  if 
he  admits  an  exception  into  his  philosophy  of  the  uni- 
verse. For  that  and  not  details  is  the  real  question.  In 
one  place  Delitzsch  holds  that  the  modern  theological 
conception — that  all  Divine  revelation  is  through  human 
intermediaries  and  hence  is  a  gradual  development — is 
his  own  as  well."  So  he  is  finally  in  complete  agree- 
ment with  us  ?  But  even  on  the  same  page  **  he  re- 
vokes this  view.  And  in  another  place  he  speaks  of  the 
revelation  of  God  that  we,  each  one  of  us,  carry  in  our 
own  consciences,*1  which  is,  accordingly,  even  if  very 
rationalistically  expressed,  a  non-supernatural  revela- 
tion, which  he  combats  elsewhere.  A  very  labyrinth  of 
contradictions !  On  what  theological  height  Delitzsch 


ISRAEL   AND   BABYLO1C  51 

stands  is  evinced  by  such  utterances  of  his  as  :  "  /*  there 
then  a  belief  besides  the  Biblical  belief*"0 — one  does  not 
believe  his  eyes  when  he  reads  it  Or  actually:  "Man- 
kind has  certainly  not  deserved  a  personal  Divine  reve- 
lation on  account  of  his  trifling  with  the  Ten  Command- 
ments"43— what  an  impossible  idea  !  For  what  have 
we,  in  any  sense,  "  deserved  "  of  God? 

Accordingly,  if  we  understand  Delitzsch  aright,  he  is 
a  rationalist  of  the  old  school,  who  has  freed  himself 
from  early  supernaturalism  and  in  exasperation  fighta 
this  as  his  proper  foe,  although  some  bits  of  the  shell  of 
eupernaturalism  cling  to  him  even  now,  but  who  has  not 
yet  arrived  at  the  understanding  that  history  is  the  proper 
field  of  revelation.  We  can  not  refrain  from  asserting 
that  such  an  unhistorical  rationalism  is  nearly  the 
most  arid  conception  of  religion  that  has  ever  ex- 
isted, and  that  previous  to  this  we  had  indulged  in  the 
deception  that  such  a  theological  position  was  demol- 
ished and  would  not  reappear. 

What  will  the  future  of  the  whole  "  Babel  and  Bible" 
movement  be  ?  We  may  prophesy  with  great  safety. 
To  the  sensation  there  will  succeed  in  not  too  far  a  time, 
indifference;  a  new  "eventful"  event  will  overthrow 
"  Babel  and  Bible."  Even  Delitzsch's  lectures,  which 
neither  have  added  new  material  nor  have  been  able  to 
say  anything  especially  novel  in  theology,  will  soon  be 
forgotten  by  the  public  ;  and  future  histories  of  science 
will  hardly  mention  them.  But  what  survives  as  a 
consequence  of  the  whole  disturbance  is,  we  may  hope, 
an  enduring  interest  of  the  educated  in  Babylonian  and 
Biblical  investigations.  For  this  we  must  thank  De- 


52  ISRAEL   AND   BABYLON 

litzsch  in  spite  of  all  the  contradictions  we  have  been 
compelled  to  give;  only,  hereafter,  let  interested  per- 
sons make  use  of  sober  and  scientifically  unassailable 
publications.  But  at  the  same  time  there  remains, 
we  must  fear,  a  mistrust  in  wide  circles  of  the  Church 
which  has,  alas,  so  long  ignored  theological  science  and 
its  assured  results.  May  the  evangelical  Church  draw 
a  lesson  from  the  events  of  to-day,  and  become  conscious 
of  its  task,  to  present  to  the  community  the  faith  in  such 
a  form  that  no  historic  criticism  may  assail  it. 


NOTES 


[All  references  to  the  first  lecture  apply  to  the  second  edition, 
from  which  the  English  translation  has  been  made.] 

»I,  p.  4  [p.  4]. 

*  Only  with  mixed  feelings  can  the  utterance  of  Delitzsch  in  II,  p. 
14  [pp.  167-168]  be  read,  according  to  which  he  expects  from  the 
Babylonian  monuments — "which  our  Expedition  will  set  to  work 
to  excavate" — a  more  notable  and  rapid  advance  in  the  linguistic 
elucidation  of  the  Old  Testament  than  has  been  possible  for  two  thou- 
sand years.     No  one  will  be  blamed  for  thinking  highly  of  his  own 
domain  of  investigation;  and  even  if  he  over-prizes  its  value,  such 
human  weakness  will  readily  be  pardoned.     But,  at  the  same  time, 
one  must  not  ask  too  much  patience  of  his  neighbor.      Let  not 
him  that  girdeth  on  his  harness  boast  himself  as  he  that  putteth  it 
off. 

'Delitzsch  speaks  in  I,  pp.  38,  39  of  DEM  Scheol  [masculine,  an 
error  lost  in  the  English  of  p.  57] ;  the  word  is  feminine. 

*  Delitzsch  cites  in  II,  p.  26  [p.  188],  16  liqtdl,  "Thou  shall  not 
kill;"  as  a  matter  of  fact  both  places  (Exodus  xx.  13,  Deuteronomy 
v.  17)  read  16  tirsah,  "Thou  shalt  do  no  murder."     [Not  so  in  A. 
V. ,  but  cf.  R.  V.  ]     "  We  scholars  would  count  it  a  grave  reproach 
to  anyone  of  ourselves  to  render  falsely  or  inaccurately,  even  in  a 
single  letter,  the  inscription  of  any  one"  (II,  p.  21)  [p.  180]. 

*It  is  totally  wrong,  if  Delitzsch,  in  the  well-known  passage,  Gen- 
esis i.  27,  "So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of 
God  created  he  him;  male  and  female  created  he  them,"  considers 
M  possible  a  polytheistic  coloring,  distinguishing  gods  and  goddesses. 
(I,  p.  64)  [p.  106].  This  was  certainly  not  the  thought  of  the 

(53) 


54  NOTES 

rigidly  monotheistic  writer  of  Genesis  i.  \cf.  any  Old  Testament  in- 
troduction for  the  essential  characteristics  of  P];  and,  just  as  little, 
there  is  no  ground  whatever  to  regard  this  polytheistic  coloring  as 
the  original  thought  in  the  material.  Much  rather  it  means  simply: 
(1)  Man  is  created  in  the  image  of  God,  (2)  when  the  men  were 
created  they  were  male  and  female. 

How  Delitzsch  can  find  in  the  passage  Job  xxiv.  18  the  later  Jew- 
ish concept  of  the  two-fold  recompense  in  the  lower  world  is  incom- 
prehensible to  me.  (I,  p.  39)  [p.  59]. 

From  Isaiah  Ixvi.  24  (''their  worm  shall  not  die,  neither  shall 
their  fire  be  quenched  " )  Delitzsch  deduces  that  cremation,  in  the 
Old  Testament,  is  thought  of  as  standing  entirely  on  the  same  level 
with  inhumation;  and  the  deduction  is  coupled  with  a  wearying  re- 
ference to  modern  times,  for  he  concludes  from  this  passage  that 
there  is  not  the  slightest  opposition  to  cremation  from  the  Biblical 
side  (I,  p.  69)  [p.  120].  But  this  conception  of  the  passage  is 
wrong;  for  it  is  very  well  known  to  us  that  the  ordinary,  honorable 
form  in  ancient  Israel  was  burial,  while  the  burning  of  the  body  was 
regarded  as  a  horrifying  shame.  [Of.  Leviticus  XT.  4,  xxi.  9, 
Joshua  vii.  25,  and  see,  c.j.,  the  article  on  Burial  in  Basting's  Dic- 
tionary of  the  Bible.]  Isaiah  Ixvi.  24  contains,  however,  no  reference 
to  the  ordinary  disposition  of  the  body,  but  is  speaking  of  the  hor- 
rible fate  of  the  apostates,  who,  met  by  the  judgment  of  God,  lie  dead 
on  the  fields,  decaying  or  disposed  of  by  burning.  [C/. ,  e.  (/.,  Duhm'a 
Isaiah,  in  loc.~\ 

Likewise  the  translation  of  Habbakuk  iii.  4,  "  horns  at  his  side' 
(II,  p.  31)  [p.  196,  "horns  coming  out  of  his  hand,"  A.  V.],is 
over-strong;  the  parallelism  with  nogah ,  "  brightness,"  and  the  con- 
text (l'and  there  was  the  hiding  of  his  power"),  shows  rather  that 
the  word  is  to  be  translated  by  "rays."  [So  R.  V.,  ef.  margin. 
The  translation  "rays"  is  practically  indubitable.]  Accordingly 
there  is  an  entire  collapse  of  Delitzsch's  opinion  that  Israel,  as  well 
as  the  Babylonians,  had  conceived  of  their  God  as  horned. 

'The  assertion  that  the  Song  of  Jonah  is  a  mosaic  of  Psalm-pas- 
sages (II,  p.  16)  [p.  171]  is,  in  my  opinion,  as  wrong  as  that  consid- 
ering Psalm  xlv.  as  a  mere  "love-song"  (II,  p.  19)  [p.  176].  At 
least  Delitzsch  should  have  expressed  these  views  with  some  limita- 
tions. 


NOTES  55 

The  remark  that  "we"  to-day  are  still  seeking  for  Mount  Sinai 
in  the  range  of  the  Sinai  peninsula  (II,  p.  22)  [p.  181]  is  not  true 
with  any  such  generality;  in  fact,  many  modern  writers  believe  that 
it  could  not  have  been  situated  there.  Here,  likewise,  Delitzsch 
proves  himself  not  to  have  mastered  the  facts  sufficiently.  [The 
best  known  supporter  of  the  (by  no  means  impossible)  theory  re- 
ferred to,  is  Prof.  Sayce.  He  places  Sinai  in  the  land  of  Midian,  it 
the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akabah.  This  theory  is  favored  by,  «.  0., 
Prof.  Gray  in  his  very  recent  commentary  on  "Numbers"  in  the 
International  Critical  series.] 

Delitzsch' s  polemic  against  the  modern  textual  criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament  (II,  p.  14)  [p.  166]  is  without  point.  Of  course,  the 
rich  Assyrian  lexicon  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  the  Hebraic, 
which  often  is  deficient,  and  it  is  likewise  possible  to  explain  many 
passages,  which  have  been  given  up  by  our  science  or  which  we  could 
hope  to  reach  only  by  textual  emendations,  by  means  of  reference  to 
the  Babylonian.  But  by  such  means  the  assured  consciousness  of 
these  generations  of  scholars  is  in  no  way  annulled,  namely,  that 
many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  are  corrupt  beyond  recovery. 

The  etymological  explanation  of  3"  ("  Yahwe"),  as  "the  Ex- 
isting, the  Enduring  one,"  is  as  dubious  as  that  of  "  El"  (God)  as 
"  Goal."  Delitzsch  should  not  have  made  such  declarations  with- 
out great  reserve.  For  "  Yahwe  "  he  has  done  so  (I,  p.  47)  [p.  69], 
but  has  neglected  it  for  "El"  (I,  p.  45)  [p.  71]. 

T  In  many  places  it  is  evident  that  Delitzsch  possesses  no  proper 
historical  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament;  which  would  be  no 
reproach  for  an  Assyriologist  who  sticks  to  his  own  subject. 

This  is  seen  most  strongly  when  Delitzsch  names  the  God,  Who 
appears  to  Moses  amid  thunder  and  earthquake: 
"  The  All-enfolding, 

The  All-upholding." 

[Goethe's  Faust,  Part  I,  Scene  XVI,  Taylor's  translation]  (II,  p.21) 
[p.  179].  Delitzsch  treats  as  the  same  the  conception  of  God  of 
Moses  and  that  of  —  Faust! 

A  remarkable  error  against  exegesis,  as  taught  by  the  history  of 
religion,  is  likewise  the  translation  of  Genesis  xii.  8,  by  which 
Abram  is  supposed  to  have  "  preached  "  in  the  name  of  J"  (II,  p. 


56  NOTES 

29)  [p.  193],  Preached  f  Preached  to  whom?  In  all  good  sooth 
not  to  the  Canaan ites?  1  The  word  in  question  means  in  that  place, 
as  all  moderns  will  agree,  not  "  to  preach  ' '  but  "  to  call  on,"  as  in 
ancient  worship. 

If  Moses,  in  his  anger,  shivered  the  tables  written  by  the  hand  of 
God,  then,  so  Delitzsch  thinks,  he  will  have  to  bear  "  a  reproach 
ascending  in  one  unanimous  shriek  [sic]  from  all  peoples  of  earth  " 
(II,  p.  21)  [p.  179].  How  much  higher  is  the  standpoint  of  the 
old  folk-legend,  which  represents  the  anger  of  the  hero  of  Israel  at 
Israel's  sin  as  so  great  that  he  threw  the  Divine  tables  to  the  ground 
in  blinding  wrath.  What  would  Michael  Angelo  have  said  if  he  had 
known  of  this  remark  of  Delitzsch'sl 

In  Delitzsch' s  opinion,  some  words  in  the  Book  of  Job  border  on 
blasphemy  (II,  p.  19)  [p.  176],  and  so  exclude  the  Old  Testament 
from  being  a  book  of  revelation.  How  much  greater  and  freer  were 
the  creators  of  the  Canon,  when  they  included  Job  in  the  Holy 
Writ,  in  spite  of  the  apparent  blasphemies!  For*  what  sort  of  blas- 
phemies are  they?  The  mightiest  outpouring  of  a  holy  man,  who 
fears  to  lose  his  God,  the  Stay  of  his  life,  who  fights  for  God  and 
justice  with  tears  of  desperation  in  his  eyes! 

The  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  Commandments  [the  numeration 
used  (see  infra)  is  not  clear]  he  supposes  in  II,  p.  28  [p.  191]  to  owe 
their  origin  to  the  instinct  of  self-preservation.  Really,  now,%em/y  to 
that  instinct?  The  national  laws  of  Israel  were  "with  a  view  to  en- 
hancing their  sacred  character  and  inviolability,  referred  to  Yahwd 
himself,  as  the  supreme  Lawgiver"  (II,  p.  23)  [p.  184].  Delitzsch 
here,  quite  in  the  manner  of  the  older  rationalism,  understands  an 
origin  as  of  deliberate  purpose,  when  it  is  really  undeliberate,  naive, 
almost  involuntary.  The  hoary  codes,  of  this  every  ancient  people 
is  convinced,  were  not  created  by  the  living  generation  nor  by  their 
ancestors  nor  by  men  at  all;  they  are  far  too  wise  and  wonderful  for 
such  a  source;  they  have  been  given  by  the  Godhead  Itself.  This 
assertion  has  an  entirely  different  origin  when  it  is  made  not  of  laws 
which  are  a  national  inheritance,  as  was  the  case  in  Israel,  but  of  a 
recently  formed  code.  The  latter  is  true  of  Hammurabi. 

It  is  unhistorical,  likewise,  when  Delitzsch  thinks  that  the  idea 
of  original  revelation  is  discredited  by  a  single  verse  of  the  Old 


NOTES  57 

Testament  (II,  pp.  3,  37)  [pp.  151,  207.  The  reference  is  to  Deu- 
teronomy iv.  19].  But  is  the  Old  Testament  a  system  in  which  there 
can  be  no  contradiction,  or  does  it  not  rather  contain  a  varied  pleni- 
tude of  records  of  a  great  process  in  the  history  of  religion,  in  which 
there  actually  have  been  all  sorts  of  different  positions?  In  this  case 
if  a  single  verse  is  to  exclude  an  original  revelation,  why  should  not 
another  contain  this  idea? 

Delitzsch  charges  the  collection  of  pamphlets  embodied  in  the 
book  of  Daniel  with  "  mistakes  and  omissions"  (II,  p.  16)  [p.  170]; 
but  the  legends  of  the  book  are  popular  traditions,  which  we  have  no 
right  to  measure  by  the  standard  of  strict  history.  [For  a  summary 
of  the  reasons  for  assigning  Daniel  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  the 
reader  may  be  referred  to  Driver's  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of 
the  Old  Testament  or  to  any  similar  work.  This  date  is  generally 
conceded.] 

As  an  example  of  the  frivolity  with  which  men  have  bandied  the 
Ten  Commandments,  Delitzsch  instances  again  the  division  of  the 
Commandments  that  is  customary  in  the  Lutheran  Church  [and  the 
Roman  Catholic.  Commandments  I  and  II  are  united  while  X  is 
divided]  (II.  p.  20)  [p.  178].  As  regards  the/oc«,  Delitzsch  is  un- 
questionably right;  but  who  will  instance  such  a  trifle  to  prove  that 
mankind  has  not  deserved  a  further  Divine  revelation!  Why  not 
allow  a  modern  church  to  arrange  the  ancient  material  in  her  own 
way  for  practical  purposes  ? 

That  different  races  may  have  a  different  understanding  of  the 
sacred  history — which  is  obvious  to  the  historic  comprehension — is 
something  Delitzsch  cannot  bring  himself  to  see;  in  early  exposition 
such  as  Hebrews  i.  8  ff.  he  sees  only  aberrations  (II,  p.  19)  [p.  177]. 
He  even  finds  fault  that  the  expression  "  the  worm  that  dieth  not" 
stands  in  Jesus'  description  of  Hell  fire,  where  it  is  "not  quite  in 
place"  (I,  p.  69)  [p.  120];  thus  Delitzsch  parades  our  or  his  mod- 
ern conception  as  obvious,  and  demands  even  of  the  age  of  the  New 
Testament  that  it  follow  this  explanation!  Moreover,  does  not  Del- 
itzsch use  a  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament  f  Had  he  looked 
into  a  modern  critical  edition,  he  would  have  noticed  that  St.  Mark 
ix.  44,  46,  which  he  quotes  with  v.  48,  are  at  present  regarded  as 
spurious,  and  that  since  only  the  last  clause  of  v.  43  (with  possibly 


58  NOTES 

that  of  v.  45)  but  not  that  of  v.  47  ff.  speak  of  Hell  yire,  his  whole  ob- 
servation fails.  [For  this  question  cf.  A.  V.  with  R.  V.  in  loc.  The 
justice  of  the  point  made  is  unquestionable,  as  the  shorter  reading 
of  R.  V.  has  overwhelming  authority.]  But  what  would  Delitzsch 
say  of  a  theologian  who  would  deal  so  uncritically  with  Assyriolog- 
ical  matters?  And  why  does  Delitzsch  talk  of  the  New  Testament  in 
which  he  is  evidently  not  at  home  f 

Very  unhistorical  is  the  manner,  too,  in  which  he  explains  the 
meaning  of  El,  "  God,"  which  according  to  him  is  to  mean  "Goal." 
The  Godhead  is  the  Goal,  that  is,  It  is  the  Being  to  whom  as  to  a 
goal  the  eyes  of  men  looking  heavenwards  are  turned,  after  whom 
the  human  heart  yearns  away  from  the  mutability  and  imperfection 
of  earthly  life  (I,  p.  45  f. )  [p.  69  f.]!  What  a  crass  modernization  1 
As  if  it  were  obvious  to  ''man"  that  he  seeks  the  Godhead  in 
heaven,  and  that  he  yearns  away  after  it  from  the  mutability  of  this 
world! 

It  is  unhistorical  also  when  Delitzsch  asserts  that  Genesis  i.  does 
not  contain  the  idea  that  God  is  the  Almighty  Creator  of  heaven 
and  earth,  because  it  leaves  the  question  unanswered:  "Whence  did 
chaos  originate?"  (I,  p.  65)  [p.  109].  But  the  idea  of  "  creation" 
has  its  history  ;  therefore  we  can  properly  say  that  this  idea  in  Gen- 
esis i.  for  the  chaos  itself  was  not  thought  out  up  to  the  ultimate  con- 
clusion; but  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  priestly  author  of  this  section 
would  have  wished  to  express  this  idea.  But  we  dare  not  seek  such 
finer  distinctions  in  Delitzsch. 

According  to  Deuteronomy  iv.  19 — which,  incidentally,  is  well 
known  to  the  Old  Testament  scholars  as  a  matter  of  course,  although 
Delitzsch  calls  it  "forgotten"  (II,  p.  3)  [p.  151]— God  has  divided 
the  host  of  heaven — i.  e.,  the  stars — to  the  people.  Delitzsch  mis- 
understood the  passage  completely  if  he  thinks  that  God  Himself 
has  abandoned  all  the  heathens  to  godlessness  (II,  p.  36  f.)  [p.  207 
f.];  the  meaning  is  rather  that  the  stare  are  really  divine  beings, 
even  if  subordinate  to  3".  ["  A  means  by  which  God  preserves 
the  heathen  from  complete  extinction  of  the  consciousness  of  God." 
— Steuernagel.]  Furthermore,  it  shows  a  total  lack  of  method  when 
Delitzsch  combines  this  verse  with  Deuteronomy  vii.  2,  according  to 
which  J"  commands  Israel  to  exterminate  the  nations  of  Canaan, 


NOTES  59 

and  when  he  calls  it  a  "terrible  [/urc^iar]"  thought,  that  J" 
should  so  mercilessly  punish  the  nations,  whom  He  Himself  has 
abandoned  to  godlessness — and  because  He  has  so  abandoned  them. 
In  this  manner  Delitzsch  combines  passages  which  have  no  inner 
connection;  he  handles  Deuteronomy  as  though  it  were  admittedly 
the  work  of  a  single  author;  this  is  a  method  that  we  should  not 
tolerate  in  scientists  among  us.  But  that  both  passages  have  no  inner 
connection  is  clear — Deuteronomy  vii.  2  in  no  sense  presupposes  that 
the  idol-worship  of  the  Canaanites  is  from  J/x.  Moreover,  the  point 
here  is  not  that  J/x  wishes  to  destroy  the  people  of  Canaan  fc '  on 
account  of  their  godlessness,"  but  rather  lest  they  seduce  Israel  to 
idolatry.  [Note. — The  criticism  of  Deuteronomy  is  probably  the 
most  difficult  problem  in  the  study  of  the  Hexateuch  and  the  agree- 
ment of  scholars  is  anything  but  unanimous  on  the  subject.  A  ma- 
jority hold  that  the  original  work  consists  of  chapters  v.-xxvi., 
xxviii.  and  that  the  other  chapters  are  somewhat  later,  but,  when 
so  eminent  a  scholar  as  Prof.  Driver  defends  the  first  four  chapters 
as  an  original  part  of  the  work,  this  view  cannot  be  regarded  as  as- 
sured. Prof.  Gunkel,  however,  takes  it  for  granted  and  the  justice 
of  his  argument  here  may  be  left  to  the  reader. 

The  most  ingenious  analysis  of  Deuteronomy  is  that  of  Dr. 
Steuernagel,  who,  however,  seems  to  have  proved  a  little  too  much. 
According  to  his  view,  vii.  2  is  a  part  of  the  original  work,  composed 
in  the  seventh  century  and  published  in  623  (the  generally  accepted 
date  of  the  book,  by  Driver  as  well),  while  iv.  19  was  added  prob- 
ably during  the  Captivity.  All  that  can  be  said  with  any  certainty, 
however,  is  that  if  there  is  a  distinction,  then  iv.  19  is  later  than 
vii.  2,  but  not  much  later.] 

Other  examples  follow  [in  Delitzsch,  i.  e.] 

•  Hammurabi  \l  196  ff.;  Exodus  xxi.  24  f. 

•  M  170  f. ;  Psalm  ii.  7.  ">  \\  192,  282;  Hosea  i,  ii. 
11  \\  244,  246;  Genesis  xxxi.  39.  »  \  9. 

"  \  144;  Genesis  xvL  J4  Genesis  xvi.  I6  \  146. 

"  A  more  complete  discussion  of  the  Babylonian-Israelite  relations 
in  the  legend  will  be  found  in  the  Christliche  Welt,  1903,  No.  6, 
cols.  121-134.  [Written  by  Prof.  Gunkel  and  referred  to  by  Del- 


60  NOTES 

itzsch  on  p.  88.  The  reader  should  notice  that  the  "  D. "  printed 
before  the  name  there  is  not  an  "initial,"  but  the  abbreviation  for 
"Doctor  of  Theology,"  as  distinguished  from  "Dr."  (of  Phil- 
osophy).] 

"I,  p.  32  [p.  46]. 

n  I,  p.  31  [p.  45];  other  instances  in  the  following. 

"Still,  as  H[einrich]  Zimmern  [professor  of  Assyriology  and 
St'initics  at  Leipsic]  suggests  to  me,  a  connection  between  the  Baby- 
lonian abQbu  and  the  Hebraic  mabbul  is  conceivable.  [The  word 
for  ark  (tebha)  is  possibly  of  Egyptian  origin.] 

10 1.  p.  29  [p.  42,  but  here  the  translation  (made  from  the  second 
edition)  reads  simply  "original  form"];  in  the  second  edition  De- 
litzsch  has  altered  this  expression,  but  again  without  adding  a  single 
word  on  the  peculiar  value  of  the  Israelite  tradition. 

"II,  p.  33  [p.  200]. 

"The  principal  passages  are  Psalms  civ.  5  ff. ,  xlvi.  3  f. ;  Isaiah 
ivii.  12-14,  li.  9  f.;  Psalms  Ixxxix.  10  ff.;  Job  xxvi.  12,  ix.  13; 
Psalms  Ixxiv.  12  ff.;  Isaiah  xxvii.  1;  Daniel  vii. ;  Revelations 
xii  ,  xiii.,  xvii.  A  more  complete  discussion  of  these  passages  in 
my  work  "Schopfung  und  Chaos,"  pp.  29-114. 

28  Delitzsch's  remark  on  the  distinction  of  sources  in  the  Paradite 
ttory  (I,  p.  67)  [p.  114]  is  surprising;  there  may  be  traced  in  the 
Biblical  narrative  in  Gen.,  chap.  ii.  seq.,  another  and  older  form 
which  recognized  but  one  tree  in  the  middle  of  the  garden — the 
Tree  of  Life.  But  this  supposition  that  an  older  recension  of  the 
story  knew  of  only  a  single  tree  has  been  expressed  already  and  long 
ago  (by  Budde  [professor  at  Strassburg  and  a  conservative  scholar 
of  the  highest  reputation]),  and  is  known  almost  universally. 
But  critics  assume,  usually,  that  this  single  tree  was  the  tree  of 
Knowledge.  [The  theory  referred  to  is  this:  The  story  of  Paradise 
and  the  Fall  belongs  entirely  to  J.  But  J  itself  is  not  a  simple  nar- 
rative but  contains  here  a  narrative  Je  which  has  been  combined  by 
a  redactor  with  small  selections  from  an  earlier  and  cruder  source 
JJ.  In  their  separate  forms,  JJ  spoke  of  both  trees,  while  J* 
knew  but  one,  that  of  Knowledge.  Accordingly  the  narrative  to 


NOTES  61 

which  Delitzsch  refers  is  the  "one-tree-narrative"  of  Je, — the  fact 
that  Jj  is  older  than  Je  is  not  the  point,  merely  that  Je  is  older  than 
the  combined  narrative.  It  may  be  added  that  while  the  theory  in 
this  form  has  been  developed  entirely  by  Prof.  Gunkel  (Prof.  Budde's 
analysis  (1883)  was  somewhat  different),  yet  the  grounds  on  which 
it  rests  are  acknowledged  by  practically  all  critics.  For  details,  see 
Gunkel's  Genesis.  Prof.  Delitzsch  "s  ignorance  of  the  whole  theory 
appears  to  be  absolute.]  Do  Delitzsch' s  words  here  rest  only  on  an 
interchange?  Or  does  he  really  think  that  he  has  succeeded  in  say- 
ing something?  In  the  latter  case  he  should  have  expounded  and 
sustained  his  opinion  more  fully;  the  arguments  that  he  uses  have 
been  employed  for  other  purposes  up  to  the  present. 

"  II,  p.  15  [p.  168]. 

"Delitzsch  (I,  p.  28)  [p.  40],  who  does  not  seem  to  occupy  him- 
self with  investigations  in  the  history  of  religion,  finds  it  '*  signifi- 
cant" that  Israelite  tradition  itself  no  longer  affords  any  certain 
information  respecting  the  origin  of  the  Sabbath ;  the  student  of  that 
science  finds  it  simply  self-evident. 

16  Of.  Zimmern,  Kettintchriften  und  das  Alte  Testament?,  pp.  592  ff. 

"I,  p.  29  [p.  41]. 

"The  material,  which  Delitzsch  arrays  in  the  comparison  of  the 
two  religions,  is  of  very  different  natures;  partly  it  contains  portions 
in  which  Israel  is  dependent  on  Babylon;  partly,  cases  where  a  cer- 
tain similarity  is  observed  without  dependence  being  necessary  on 
that  account;  often  the  similarities  are  so  general  that  they  are  found 
everywhere  in  antiquity,  as,  e.  g. ,  that  the  Godhead  reveals  Itself 
in  a  dream  or  through  an  intermediary.  Such  latter  cases  would 
not  have  been  mentioned  at  all  in  this  connection  by  an  investigator 
trained  in  the  history  of  religion. 

n  Cf. Chamberlain,  Diltttantismus,  p.  44  ff.;  Ed.  Meyer  in  Kos- 
cher's  Lexikon  der  rbmischen  und  griechischen  Mythologie,  Art.  El. 

*°I,  p.  46  ff.  [p.  71]. 

11  Zimmern,  Kcilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament*,  p.  468.  On 
the  etymology  of  J"  and  El.  ef.  above,  note  6.  Moreover,  in 
itself  there  certainly  can  be  nothing  to  protest  against  the  occurrence 


62  NOTES 

of  the  name  J"  in  pre-Israelite  times;  for  Moses  has  certainly  not 
invented  the  name  [some  interesting  questions  are  raised  here,  par- 
ticularly in  studying  the  religion  of  the  Midianites],  we  might  rather 
assume  even  without  evidence  that  the  name  had  some  sort  of  a  pre- 
vious history.  Why  should  it  not  occur  somewhere  in  the  Babylo- 
nian pantheon  as  well  ?  But  the  question  is  not  as  to  the  sound 
"Yahwfc,"  but  as  to  what  sort  of  a  divine  figure  men  conceived 
under  this  name. 

"Zimmern,  Keilinachriften  und  dot  Alte  Testament*,  p.  609. 

"Delitzsch  (II,  p.  30  ff. )  [p.  195],  in  order  to  make  the  idolatry 
of  the  Babylonians  conceivable,  refers  to  the  fact  that  even  the 
prophets  of  Israel  have  represented  Jx/  anthropomorphically.  Quite 
right,  the  idea  of  the  "immateriality"  of  God  is  striven  for 
but  not  yet  attained.  But  what  a  great  advance  it  is  nevertheless, 
that  the  prophetic  religion  repels  every  image  with  lofty  scorn  1 
And  in  that  regard  we  are  children  of  the  prophets  and  not  of  the 
Babylonians.  But  how  in  this  connection  can  Delitzsch  actually 
point  to  the  pictures  of  God  the  Father  in  Christian  art?  For  every 
child  among  us  knows  what  the  Babylonians  did  not  know,  that  such 
pictures  are  not  really  true  pictures  of  the  Godhead,  but  are  mere 
works  of  the  fancy. 

"II,  p.  41  [p.  213].  "II,  p.  44  [p.  219]. 

"I,  p.  44  [p.  67].  "II,  p.  16  [p.  170]. 

M II,  p.  39  [p.  211].  "II,  p.  44  [p.  219]. 

"H,  p.  44  [p.  219],  "  II,  p.  20  [p.  178]. 

"I,  p.  59  [?]  "II,  p.  20  [p.  178]. 


NOTES  63 

SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTE 

The  American  translation  of  the  whole  of  Babel  und  Bibel  has 
just  been  issued  by  The  Open  Court  Publishing  Company  of  Chicago, 
the  first  lecture  having  been  published  about  a  year  ago.  As  far  as 
the  rendition  is  concerned  there  is  little  to  choose  between  the  work 
of  Profs.  McCormack  and  Carruth  and  that  of  Mr.  Johns,  but  the 
English  edition  justifies  its  higher  price  by  better  execution  and 
decidedly  clearer  plates,  although  the  American  edition  contains  a 
larger  number  of  the  latter.  Pp.  120-144  of  the  American  transla- 
tion are  devoted  to  a  series  of  extracts  from  various  replies  to  Prof. 
Delitzsch,  and  will  be  found  helpful  by  the  reader  who  is  ignorant 
of  German. 

An  instance  of  the  irrelevance  mentioned  on  p.  4  of  the  preface 
to  the  present  pamphlet  will  be  found  in  Dr.  Cams'  remarks  on  p. 
143  of  the  translation.  His  sentence  "Let  no  Athanasius  with  his 
limited  knowledge  bind  the  conscience  of  a  Delitzsch,"  might  serve 
as  a  sublime  model  for  the  insertion  of  an  utterly  pointless  allusion. 
For  what  conceivable  connection  there  can  be  between  the  Arian 
controversy  and  the  present  dispute  is,  to  say  the  least,  not  obvious. 
It  would  be  most  interesting  to  learn  how  Prof.  Delitzsch' s  investi- 
gations have  rendered  "the  Nicene  formulation  of  the  Christian 
creed"  "untenable."  And  what  a  consolation  it  is  to  learn  that 
"divine  science"  promises  to  render  our  knowledge  "unlimited I" 
— E.  S.  B. 


• 


THE  LI 
UNIVERSITY  O] 


A     001  005  321     3 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 
x%     from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


JAN  1  5  W. 


Seri 


•',   > 


niver 
Sou 


